Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Kar) 82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.
Chinni Babu S/o Jambanna – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture – Respondent
W.P.NO.208413 of 2017 (S-RES) C/W W.P.NO.207476, 208440 of 2017, 204646, 204648, 204854 of 2018
Decided on : 22-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI BASAVARAJ, FOR SRI RAVINDRA REDDY ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, SRI AMRESH S ROJA, SRI A.M.NAGARAL ADV

Point of Law : Subsection 4 of Section 52 provides for classification, qualification, and manner of appointment, terms, and conditions of service, and powers and duties of teachers and other employees of the University.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1905 – Article 226 – Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules, 2006 – University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 – Section 52, 67 – Criteria – Mandamus – Whether changes are made to bring selection process in conformity with binding law or regulation – Whether changes are made in violation of binding law or regulation – Whether changes are made with a malafide intention of conferring undue favour to a particular or a section of candidates? – Para 28.
Finding of the court: Court has considered said contention in backdrop of ratio laid down in aforementioned case – Ratio laid down in said case is not applicable – In said case, person who participated in selection process, without any protest, later, on announcement of result which was against him, questioned recruitment process by filing a writ petition – In writ petition, he raised a contention that selection process is contrary to binding law and selection process is held by misconstruing existing provision of law – In such a situation, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that writ petition to challenge selection process on ground that it is contrary to law governing selection process is maintainable, even though petitioner has participated in examination without protest – There is no binding law that would come to rescue of petitioners to say that examination is to be held as per law – In absence of law relating to criteria for selection of employees, board of university has evolved certain eligibility criteria and eligibility criteria are modified on ground that modified eligibility criteria will be in tune with eligibility criteria fixed by other Universities in State
Results: Writ Petitions are allowed.

ORDER :

'Rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun’.

This phrase, which has found its place in many of the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and High Courts when the Courts have taken exception to the employer's decisions, changing the criteria for selection of employees, after the commencement of the process of selection, is the trump card for the petitioners.

2. Petitioners cling to the ratio in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of K.Manjusree etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another AIR 2008 SC 1470 and in the matter of N.T.Bevin Katti, etc. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1233 to justify their stand.

3. Changes in the selection criteria are notified and you have consciously participated in the selection process without any demur or protest. You took a chance, waited for the result, and now cannot turn around to say that a change in criteria midway through the selection process is impermissible, is the response of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur/appointing authority (for short’ University’).

4. The other contesting respondents who apparently benefited from the changed criteria would echo the same defence. Respondents seek to take shelter under the doctrine of estoppel and contend that parties cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

5. The above-referred writ petitions revolve around these principles among others. The petitioners in these petitions have questioned the notification of the respondent-University published on 4.9.2017, wherein the evaluation criteria are partially changed after the examinations. The petitioners also seek Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the selection as per the evaluation criteria prescribed in the year 2010 and 2015.

6. Before getting into the discussion on the merits, it is relevant to state that the ratio laid down in the case of K.Manjusree and the principle that the ‘Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun in the context of the recruitment of employees under the State or instrumentalities of the State’ is referred to the larger Bench, by the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the mater of Tej Prakash Patak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540. Merely because the ratio in the said case is doubted and the matter is referred to a larger bench, it does not lose its value as a precedent. The ratio holds good till it is overruled.

7. The dates of publication of various notifications relevant in these petitions are presented in chronological order for easy reference:

Date	Events
2009	University of agricultural sciences Raichur is established.
2010	University of Agricultural Sciences Act 2010 is enacted.
20.09.2010	University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur issued the notification adopting the Score Card method for recruiting employees.
04.11.2015	University invited applications for filling up various posts in different cadres.
31.12.2015	The Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by competitive examination and selection) (General) Rules - 2006 were amended and competitive examination was introduced for the selection of employees.
2016	The Coordinate Committee of the University of Agricultural Sciences, in the State as well as the Board of the University, decided to adopt the procedure for employing ‘C’ group employees as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules 2006 as amended in the year 2015 and competitive examinations were introduced for selection of ‘C’ group employees.
09.04.2016	University issued notification modifying Score Card method published on 20.09.2010. The decision was taken pursuant to the decision of the Coordinate Committee of the University of Agricultural Sciences and the Board of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Kar) 82

Point of Law : Subsection 4 of Section 52 provides for classification, qualification, and manner of appointment, terms, and conditions of service, and powers and duties of teachers and other employees of the University.

Cases Referred (3)