Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 834
High Court of Karnataka
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR & K.N. PHANEENDRA, JJ.
C. Nagaraja & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka & Others
W.P. Nos. 23295 29068-29080 & 29351 of 2013 C/W W. P. Nos. 23669-23672 of 2013 W. P. Nos. 22127 & 32310-317 of 2013 (S-KAT )
Decided On : 19-12-2013
For the Appearing Parties:M. Narayana Bhat for M/s. Subba Rao & Co., P.S. Rajagopal, Sr. Counsel for A. Nagarajappa, J. Prashanth, P.B. Bajentri, GA., M.S. Bhagwat, Advocates.
Headnote:LABOUR & SERVICES - Appointment: [Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & K.N. Phaneendra, JJ] Challenge to horizontal reservation made in recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Special) under Karnataka State Police Service (Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors) (Special) Rules, 2003 - Karnataka Administrative Tribunal holding horizontal reservation is bad in the eye of law directed the selection authority to re-do the selection excluding the candidates who have been selected by applying horizontal reservation - Held, The private petitioners after being selected and appointed have been serving as Sub-Inspectors of Police since 2003, i.e., for about 10 years. All the selected candidates are not impleaded as parties. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned, we do not find any ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal, by which the Tribunal has concluded that the horizontal reservation provides is not proper and not correct. On the other hand, we conclude that the selection authority has rightly provided horizontal reservation. Impugned order of K.A.T. was quashed.
Key Points from the Judgment
-
Case Details and Parties: Writ petitions filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution to quash KAT order dated 13.3.2013 in Application No.8965/2003 c/w others. Private petitioners (police constables/head constables) selected as Sub-Inspectors in 2003 under Karnataka State Police Service (Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors)(Special) Rules, 2003 ("Special Rules"). (!) (!) (!) [3000284880025][3000284880001]
-
Recruitment Process: Special Rules framed for 200 direct recruitment vacancies of Sub-Inspector (Civil) from in-service candidates (Constables, Head Constables, ASIs). Notification dated 7.4.2003 (gazetted 2.5.2003) specified horizontal and vertical reservations. Selection via physical test, written exam, viva-voce, performance reports. Final list published 28.10.2003; petitioners appointed and serving since then. [3000284880025][3000284880001][3000284880009][3000284880014]
-
Tribunal's Order: Held horizontal reservation in notification invalid as inconsistent with Special Rules (no provision for it); directed re-selection excluding horizontal reservation candidates, considering vertical reservation only. [3000284880002]
-
Petitioners' Arguments: Respondents estopped (participated claiming horizontal reservation); recruitment is direct, not promotion; Special Rules (Rule 12) apply General Recruitment Rules, Police Services Rules unless inconsistent; horizontal reservation mandatory under those rules and Rural Candidates Act for categories like rural, ex-servicemen, etc.; not all selected candidates impleaded; long service (10 years). [3000284880003] (!) (!)
-
Respondents' Arguments: Not direct recruitment but accelerated promotion from in-service; horizontal reservation (Rule 9 General Rules) only for direct recruitment, not promotions; Special Rules (Rules 7(d),(e)) indicate promotion (performance reports, sealed cover). [3000284880004]
-
Estoppel Finding: All parties, including respondents, understood and claimed horizontal reservation; participated without protest; estoppel applies on facts against challenging notification. [3000284880005][3000284880006][3000284880007]
-
Nature of Recruitment: Direct recruitment (200 vacancies explicitly "direct recruitment" per Rule 1(3) Special Rules) from in-service candidates, not promotion (allows jump from Constable to SI, not next cadre; double/triple promotion invalid). Tests mirror direct recruitment; performance reports/sealed cover natural for in-service but do not convert to promotion. [3000284880008][3000284880013][3000284880014][3000284880015] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [3000284880021][3000284880022]
-
Applicability of Horizontal Reservation: No prohibition in Special Rules; Rule 12 applies General Recruitment Rules (Rules 3(2),3A,3B,9 etc. overriding), Police Services Rules (horizontal for NCC/sports even in 10% in-service quota), Rural Candidates Act (25% rural in each category), govt. orders. Rules 5 & 8 Special Rules require specifying reservation categories (vertical/horizontal) and considering govt. reservation orders. Notification correctly detailed horizontal quotas (rural, ex-servicemen, etc.). (!) [3000284880009][3000284880011][3000284880012] (!) [3000284880016] (!) [3000284880017] (!) [3000284880018][3000284880019][3000284880020] (!)
-
Impleadment and Selectivity Issue: Respondents challenged only 19 petitioners (13 rural quota, others NCC/PDP); ignored other 64 horizontal appointees; rural quota mandatory under Act. [3000284880023] (!)
-
Conclusion: Tribunal order quashed; horizontal reservation proper; direct recruitment justified it; petitioners' appointments valid; writs allowed. Long service and non-impleadment of all appointees noted. [3000284880024] (!) (!)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure-A.
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.8965/2003 connected with Application Nos.8966- 8973/2003 vide Annexure-C.)
Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar, J.
These writ petitions are filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.3.2013 in Application No.8965/2003 c/w. Application Nos.8966-8973/2003 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners in WP.Nos.23295 & 29068-29080 & 29351/2013 and in WP.Nos.23669-23672/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'private petitioners') were working as Police Constables and Head Constables in the year 2003. The Government of Karnataka framed and published in its gazette dated 7.4.2003 the Rules called 'Karnataka State Police Service (Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors)(Special) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Rules' for short). The Special Rules were made for filling up of 200 direct recruitment vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in the Karnataka State Police Services. Pursuant to such Special Rules, the Government of Karnataka issued recruitment notification, dated 7.4.2003 gezetted in Special Gazette dated 2.5.2003 in connection with recruitment of 200 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). The said notification has also specified the procedure for recruitment as well as classification of the posts and reservation to be made horizontally as well as vertically. Pursuant to the said notification dated 2.5.2003, the private petitioners as well as private respondents applied and participated in the recruitment process which included written test also.
2. The written test, viva-voce as well as physical test were conducted as per the Special Rules. A final list of selected candidates was published on 28.10.2003 on the basis of marks secured in the written test. All the private petitioners (19 in numbers) and other 181 candidates were selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police. Since then, the private petitioners are working as Sub-Inspectors of Police.
3. The private respondents challenged the selection and appointment of the private petitioners before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.8965/2003 and 8966-8973/2003. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that horizontal reservation provided in the notification dated 7.4.2003 was not legally valid as it is inconsistent with the Special Rules, and consequently horizontal reservation provided under the recruitment notification held to be bad in the eye of law. The Tribunal has further held that the selection of those candidates claiming horizontal reservation without considering the claims of the applicants before the Tribunal and similarly placed candidates was not legally correct and it needs to be revised. Consequently the selection authority is directed to re-do the selection excluding the candidates who have been selected by applying horizontal reservation. Consequential orders are also made. The contention of the private respondents (applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal) that though the Special Rules do not provide for horizontal reservation, the recruitment notification dated 7.4.2003, gazetted on 2.5.2003 has provided horizontal reservation contrary to the Special Rules, is accepted by the Tribunal.
4. Sri M.S.Bhagwat, Sri Subramnya Bhat and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions contended that all the private respondents herein had participated in the selection process by claiming horizontal reservation; they were not successful since they were not meritorious; the private respondents having understood the contents of the notification appl
