Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38492

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C M Joshi, J
Y.S. Sumathy – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2025 (S-RES)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Swamy N.B.N.
For the Respondents: Naveen Chandrashekar

Recruitment criteria can be amended mid-process if the governing statutory regulations explicitly mandate that ongoing selection processes must be updated to maintain compliance with new standards, provided such changes are not arbitrary and align with the statutory framework.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Eligibility criteria - Applicability of statutory regulations - Whether criteria can be amended mid-process - The recruitment process is governed by rules of statutory force - Where regulations govern qualifications and service conditions, these apply even if they involve mid-process modifications via a corrigendum, provided such modifications are explicitly stipulated by the governing regulations - Recruitment cannot be conducted in violation of applicable statutory standards. (Paras 15, 23, 24, 30)

(B) Recruitment Process - Implementation of new standards - Extent of judicial interference - A recruitment process is not immune to changes if the governing statutory framework mandates updates to maintain standards - Mid-process changes are permissible if the statutory framework under which the recruitment is held expressly provides for such amendments to ensure compliance. (Paras 31, 32, 35)

Facts of the case:
An advertisement for the post of faculty in a technical institution was issued. Before the recruitment process was concluded, the regulating authority introduced new standards for qualifications and eligibility for the technical cadre. The government directed the institution to issue a corrigendum to align the recruitment with these updated statutory standards. The applicant challenged the directive, contending that eligibility criteria could not be altered once the recruitment process had commenced.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the rules mandating the updated qualifications were binding. A specific clause in the regulations provided a mandatory mechanism for updating ongoing recruitments through a corrigendum where interviews had not yet been conducted, thus validating the directive to update the process.

Issues: Whether the recruiting authority can require a corrigendum to change eligibility criteria established at the commencement of a recruitment process based on new statutory regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory regulations governing educational qualifications in professional institutions are binding. When such regulations expressly mandate that ongoing selection processes—where interviews are pending—must be aligned with new standards, the prohibition against changing recruitment rules mid-process does not bar the issuance of necessary corrigenda to ensure legal compliance.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the recruitment dispute and challenged administrative directions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. applicability of new aicte 2019 regulations to existing recruitment processes. (Para 5 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
3. statutory rules and regulations override administrative recruitment advertisements mid-process. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. dismissal of the appeal upholding the lower court's decision. (Para 37 , 38)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.03.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23131/2024 (S-RES) captioned 'Dr. Y.S. Sumathy vs. State of Karnataka & Others'.

2. The appellant [Dr. Y.S. Sumathy] had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to approve the merit-cum-eligible list dated 11.05.2022. The appellant's name found place in the said list as an 'Associate Professor' in the Department of Instrumentation Technology with Respondent No.4 Institute. The appellant also sought an order to disregard the letter dated 20.06.2024 [impugned letter] issued by respondent No.3 [Director of Technical Education, Government of Karnataka]. The said petition was dismissed in terms of the impugned order.

3. Respondent No.4 had issued a notification dated 25.02.2020 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up posts of Professors and Associate Professors in different disciplines. Pursuant to the said notification, the appellant had applied for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Instrumentation Technology in the reserved category for Scheduled Caste.

4. The appellant was placed in the top of the list prepared by respondent No.4. However, the appellant was not appointed to the post by the Government of Karnataka. Respondent No.3 had issued the impugned letter calling upon Respondent No.4 to amend the advertisement, to specifically incorporate the eligibility criteria regarding the qualification and experience as required for the post of Professor and Associate Professor, in terms of the ['All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training & Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education – (Degree) Regulations, 2019'] [ AICTE Regulations, 2019 ]. Thus, the list would be required to be re-worked in terms of the impugned letter.

5. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the impugned letter and claims that no changes could be effected in the notification, since the process for recruitment had already commenced. Thus, the principal question to be considered is, whether the AICTE Regulations, 2019 are applicable for appointment to the post of Professor and Associate Professor pursuant to the notice inviting applications dated 25.02.2020.

Prefatory facts

6. The appellant claims to be a Ph.D. Doctorate in the discipline of Biomedical Instrumentation, which was awarded to her in the year 2019 by Visveswaraiah Technological University [VTU]. She also has a teaching experience of more than ten years in the subject of 'Instrumentation Technology' as of March 2020.

7. Respondent No.4 [Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology], issued a notice dated 25.02.2020, inviting applications from eligible candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to fill up backlog vacancies in its College for the posts of Professor and Associate Professor in different departments of engineering. The last date for filing applications was fixed as 26.03.2020. The said notice also expressly stated that the backlog vacanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38492

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAVibhu Bakhru, CJ, C M Joshi, JY.S. Sumathy – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentWRIT APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2025 (S-RES)

Recruitment criteria can be amended mid-process if the governing statutory regulations explicitly mandate that ongoing selection processes must be updated to maintain compliance with new standards, provided such changes are not arbitrary and align with the statutory framework.

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, C M Joshi, J
Y.S. Sumathy – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2025 (S-RES)