Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
G. Narendar, M.I. Arun, JJ.
Nagaraj - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Department Of Excise Government Of Karnataka, Bengaluru - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 117767 of 2019, 103279 of 2018
Decided On : 13-11-2020
Ravi Hegde, Advocate, V.S. Kalasurmath, Advocate, H.M. Dharigond, Advocate, Sunil S Desai, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the reservation policy and the application of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 in the context of appointment disputes.
Headnote:
Reservation - Appointment Dispute - Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, Rule 4 - The court discussed the reservation policy under the Constitution of India and the interpretation of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. It highlighted the principle that if a candidate from a reserved category performs well enough to be placed in the general merit category, they should be considered under the general merit category, and the benefit of reservation should go to another candidate from the reserved category. The court also referred to relevant Supreme Court cases to support its interpretation of the reservation policy.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of candidates for driver positions in the Department of Excise, Government of Karnataka. The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, contested the appointment of respondent No.4 and No.5, claiming that he should have been appointed against the reserved post for Scheduled Tribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of respondent No.4 should have been considered in the general merit category, and the petitioner should have been appointed against the reserved category for Scheduled Tribe. It also concluded that the appointment of respondent No.5 was illegal and set it aside.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of the reservation policy and the correct application of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 in the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the reservation policy and Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, which emphasized that candidates from reserved categories who perform well should be considered under the general merit category, and the benefit of reservation should go to another candidate from the reserved category.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the appointment of respondent No.4 was considered as an appointment in the general merit category. The petitioner was to be appointed against the vacancy for the Scheduled Tribe category, and the appointment of respondent No.5 was set aside.
JUDGMENT
M.I.Arun, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2017, passed by the KAT in application No.5275/2013, the applicant therein has preferred W.P.No.117767/2019. As against the said order, respondent Nos.1 to 3-State have also preferred W.P.No.103279/2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2012, the second respondent called for application to fill up two posts of driver in the Department of Excise, Government of Karnataka. Out of them, one post was earmarked for Scheduled Tribe (men and woman) and another post for General Merit (woman). It was also mentioned that in case a suitable woman is not found in the general merit category, male candidate can be considered. No suitable woman candidate had applied for the post.
4. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and he had applied for the post. After due tests, the petitioner stood second amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is relevant to note that respondent No.4, who also belongs to Scheduled Tribe, scored the highest marks followed by respondent No.5, who belongs to General Merit category.
5. The Department appointed respondent No.4 under the category reserved for Scheduled Tribe and respondent No.5 under General Merit category.
6. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that, respondent No.4 having secured highest marks amongst all the candidates in all categories had to be considered as against the vacancy in General Merit category and as the petitioner had secured next highest marks amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates, the reserved post for Scheduled Tribe should have been given to him. On the said grounds, he approached the KAT.
7. The KAT agreed with the contention of the petitioner herein. However, as the probationary period of respondent No.5 having already been declared, it came to the conclusion that it would not be prudent enough to disturb the appointment of respondent No.5 and his seniority. Accordingly, it has directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to create a supernumerary post for the applicant, without disturbing the seniority of respondent No.5 and appoint the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Similarly the Government on the ground that the direction of the KAT to create supernumerary post is illegal and is not in a position to create such a post has preferred a writ petition.
8. The contention of the petitioner is that he ought to have been recruited as against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and that the recruitment of respondent No.5 is illegal. For the said reasons, it is contended that he cannot be appointed as against supernumerary post and if at all any person has to be appointed as against the said supernumerary post, it should be respondent No.5 and that the petitioner should be placed above respondent No.5 in the order of seniority.
9. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have contended that the order passed by the KAT insofar as it relates to creating supernumerary post for the petitioner is bad and to that extent sought for modifying the order.
10. Respondent No.5 has justified the order passed by the KAT and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, reads as under:
4. Procedure of appointment.- Subject to the provisions of these rules, appointments to any service or post shall be made.-
(1) In the case of recruitment by direct recruitment.-
(a) if it is by competitive examination, in the order of merit from the list of candidates prepared by the Commission or other examining authority;
(b) if it is by selection, after giving such adequate publicity to the recruitment as the Appointing Authority may determined, in the order of merit of candidates as determined by the Commission, the Advisory or Selection Committee, or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be; xxxxx
12. Thus, when any appointment is made by way of direct r
