IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, RAJESH RAI K., JJ.
Sunil G., S/o. Govindappa & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Sciences & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16408 of 2023 (S-KSAT)
Decided On : 05-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal challenge to recruitment rules (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the essence of competition in public employment is upheld. (Para 3) |
| 3. legal standing of aggrieved parties in administrative appeals is discussed. (Para 4) |
| 4. arguments on the maintainability of the review petition (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 5. the tribunal's decisions must allow all aggrieved parties a fair hearing. (Para 9) |
| 6. issues regarding the nature of recruitment and qualifications (Para 10 , 12 , 18) |
| 7. the importance of adhering to meritocratic principles in public recruitment. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 8. observations on qualifications and competitive examination requirements (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. final judgment emphasizes dismissal based on maintainability. (Para 42) |
| 10. conclusion and order on the petition (Para 46 , 47) |
ORDER :
“Strong competition is the essence of public employment there by allowing the state to select the best for public employment. Absence of competition means nothing but a disservice action”
These petitioners are calling-in-question the probity and legality of order dated 20-06-2023 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (For short ‘Tribunal’) In Review Application No.33-67/2023 wherein, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the relief sought by these petitioners, who are third party litigants who sought for a reopen and rehear of O.A.No.952-1001/2022 which was partly allowed vide order dated 15.02.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioners, who were the applicants before tribunal, are before this court.
2. The facts that are apposite for consideration as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
The Government of Karnataka vide order dated 25.05.2022 has framed Karnataka Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Recruitment of Veterinary Officers) (Special) Rules, 2022 (for short ‘Special Rules, 2022’). Pursuant to which, applications for the Group-A post of Veterinary Officers came to be notified vide Notification No:CAH/EST/A-5/E-14/2022 dated 08.03.2022 and CAH/EST/A-5/E-14/A/2022 dated 08.03.2022. It in this background, some of the aspirants to the post that was called by the State Government, approached the Tribunal vide Application Nos.952-1001/2022 challenging the notification dated 25.02.2022 contending that, these applicants were aspirants for the civil posts of Veterinary Officers in the Government of Karnataka who are all Post-Graduates i.e., holders of Masters Degree in Veterinary Science (MVSc). They contended before the Tribunal that the State had notified the draft Rules, 2022 dated 31.01.2022 and the same is depraved for the reason that-
ii. It did not accord 5% weightage to candidates possessing MVSc qualification;
iii. It postulated for special recruitment based on Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) and no written examination is proposed to be held for the selection of candidates;
iv. Recruitment is envisaged for 400 vacancies out of which 342 are regular vacancies and 58 backlog unfilled vacancies in previous recruitment and that 1512 upgraded posts in G.O dated 09-10-2017 have not been included in the recruitment;
v. There is no weightage of marks for past services.
3. Meanwhile document verification of originals were conducted from 20.05.2022 to 24.05.2022 and Kannada language test was conducted through KEA on 07.08.2022. Further, results were also announced on 29.10.2022.
4. Tribunal in pursuance to the direction given by this Court was pleased to quash the Special Rules 2022 supra in A.Nos.952-100/2022 vide dated 15.02.2023. Further in accordance with the order of the Tribunal, on 21.03.2023, a communication was addressed by the respondent-State to KPSC for recruitment of veterinary Doctors as per General Recruitment Rules. It is in this scaenarium, a Writ Petition No.7107/2023 came to be filed by the petitioners and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file Review Petition before the Tribunal on 19.04.2023. Accordingly, the Review Petition
Rajashree Cement vs. State of Karnataka
Maya Mathew vs. State of Kerala
State of T.N. vs. K. Shyam Sunder
Umadevi vs. State of Karnataka
Prabodh Verma vs. State of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar (Dr) vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College
State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab
State of U.P. v. Om Prakash Gupta
State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani
Shri Chander Chinar Bada Akhara Udasin Society v. State of J&K
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
Govt. of A.P. v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao
Siddu Venkappa Devadiga v. Rangu S. Devadiga
Trojan and Co. Ltd. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar
Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan
Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam
Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti
M.G. Maheshwara Rao v. State of Karnataka
K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India
Rajeev Kumar vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan
M.G. Maheshwara Rao vs. State of Karnataka
The absence of a competitive examination in the recruitment process for public employment violates constitutional rights, emphasizing the need for merit-based selection to ensure fairness and transpa....
The state government has the authority to prescribe eligibility criteria for admission to postgraduate medical courses, and such criteria is valid if it is based on merit, is not arbitrary or discrim....
Reservation of seats for candidates from outside the State under Rule 6 (c) of the Admission Rules was not violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution, as it was made in accordance with the condition....
Administrative Tribunals are competent to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of statutory rules and regulations, excluding their own parent statute. Consequently, such Tribunals must functio....
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring candidates' qualifications are fairly considered in recruitment matters, and affirmed the tribunal's duty to address constitutional challenges to rules....
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge the process or regulations post-selection, establishing a principle of acquiescence in recruitment law.
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
The court upheld the application of the Recruitment Rules, 2025 over previous rules and confirmed judicial deference to executive policy decisions in educational recruitment without breaching rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.