2010 Supreme(Kar) 1088

High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA
Karnataka Public Service Commission Represented by its Secretary Bangalore
Versus
K. Sharada & Others
Writ Petition Nos.6500-6508 of 2009 (S-KAT) C/w Writ Petition Nos.3788-3789 of 2009 (S-KAT) Writ Petition Nos.6416-6417 of 2009 (S-KAT) Writ Petition Nos.6418-6419 of 2009 (S-KAT) Writ Petition Nos.6510-6513 of 2009 (S-KAT) Writ Petition No.13191 of 2009 (S-KAT) Writ Petition No.23682 of 2009 (S-KAT) & Writ Petition No.23683 of 2009 (S-KAT)
Decided On : 15-12-2010

Headnote:

The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal allowed 40 applications challenging the Government Order dated 13-02-01 which brings the General Merit (Rural) candidates under creamy layer and prescribes Form 1. The Tribunal held that the said Government Order is in violation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments of Posts (in the civil Service of the State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) challenged the Tribunal's order before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court held that the KPSC has locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order and that the creamy layer policy is applicable to in-service candidates. The High Court also held that the employees who are working in the Water Resources Development Organization (WRDO) are eligible to apply against in-service post notified in terms of the notification. The applicants in the present case have challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court.

Fact of the Case:

The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department. The number of posts notified was 52 in the said notification, which comprised 42 from amongst open competition candidates and 10 from in-service candidates. The last date for receipt of applications was 26.05.2007. Subsequently, the Commission issued another notification dated 08-08-2007, by which the number of posts was enhanced. The number of posts notified in total was 104, out of which, 84 posts were earmarked for open competition candidates and 20 for in-service candidates. The Government of Karnataka issued a Government Order dated 30.03.02 regarding the reservation policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, laying down the comprehensive creamy layer policy. The said Annexure-11 to the said Government Order provides a list of persons who are not eligible to claim reservation under category II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of the Backward classes. Note 2(2) of the said Annexure provides that a candidate who is a Group-B officer in the services of the Government is not eligible for reservation under the said category of backward classes. The Karnataka Reservation of Appointments of Posts (in the civil Service of the State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000, for short the ‘Act’, was brought into force on 16th February, 2001. Section 3 of the said Act provided that 25% of the vacancies ear marked for direct recruitment in each of the categories of general merit, Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and each of the categories of other Backward Classes shall be reserved for rural candidates. The term ‘rural candidate’ had been defined in the said Act. Proviso to Section 3 of the said Act provided that the concept of creamy layer made applicable as per the order of the Government with regard to reservation issued under clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of a rural candidate belonging to General Merit or other Backward Classes, except category I. Exercising power under Section 5 of the said Act, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 13.02.01 which clarifies certain aspects with regard to reservation of rural candidates. The said Government Order also provides for the authorities who are competent to issue certificates for the said purpose and prescribes forms thereto. Clause I of the said Government Order provides that the concept of creamy layer shall apply to candidates belonging to general category and categories II-A, II-B, III-A and III-B of Backward Classes.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the KPSC has locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order. The Court also held that the creamy layer policy is applicable to in-service candidates and that the employees who are working in the WRDO are eligible to apply against in-service post notified in terms of the notification. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants.

Issues: 1. Whether the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) has locus standi to challenge the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal? 2. Whether the creamy layer policy is applicable to in-service candidates? 3. Whether the employees who are working in the Water Resources Development Organization (WRDO) are eligible to apply against in-service post notified in terms of the notification?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court held that the KPSC has locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's order because the KPSC is a constitutional authority created under the Constitution and it has the right to challenge any order which is contrary to the statutory provisions. The Court also held that the KPSC has a right to challenge the Tribunal's order even if the State Government has accepted the order. 2. The Supreme Court held that the creamy layer policy is applicable to in-service candidates because the Government Order dated 30.03.02 regarding the reservation policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, laying down the comprehensive creamy layer policy, is applicable to all candidates, including in-service candidates. 3. The Supreme Court held that the employees who are working in the WRDO are eligible to apply against in-service post notified in terms of the notification because the Government Order dated 13.02.01 which clarifies certain aspects with regard to reservation of rural candidates, provides that the employees who are working in the WRDO are eligible to apply against in-service post notified in terms of the notification.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants.