Case Note & Summary
The case involves a service dispute between two Scheduled Tribe candidates for a single post of Assistant Professor in English at Bangalore University, advertised as a backlog vacancy reserved for STs. The advertisement dated 21.03.2018 specified that the mode of selection would be as per the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC's and ST's) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules gives preference to candidates within the age bracket of 29-40 years. The appellant, though higher in merit, was 28 years old, while respondent No. 7 was within the preferential age bracket. The university appointed the appellant based on merit, ignoring the age preference. Respondent No. 7 challenged this before the Karnataka High Court, which allowed the writ petition and directed the appointment of respondent No. 7. The Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court considered the applicability of the 2001 Rules to university appointments. The court examined the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990, and the 2001 Rules. The court noted that the Reservation Act, 1990 defines 'establishments in public sector' to include universities, and Section 4(1A) extends the 2001 Rules to all establishments. The court held that when the advertisement expressly adopts the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection, the university is bound to follow the preferential age rule. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that respondent No. 7, being the preferential candidate, is entitled to appointment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Preferential Age Rule - Backlog Vacancies - Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC's and ST's) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001, Rule 6 - The 2001 Rules provide a preferential age bracket of 29-40 years for filling backlog vacancies reserved for SCs/STs. The court held that when the advertisement expressly adopts the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection, the university is bound to follow the preferential age rule, and appointment of a candidate outside that age bracket is illegal, even if the candidate is higher in merit. (Paras 3-5, 11-12)
B) Service Law - Applicability of 2001 Rules to Universities - Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990, Section 4(1A) - The 2001 Rules, framed under the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978, apply to universities because the Reservation Act, 1990 defines 'establishments in public sector' to include universities, and Section 4(1A) extends the rules to all establishments. The court held that the 2001 Rules are applicable to appointments made by universities for backlog vacancies. (Paras 7-10, 13-14)
C) Service Law - Overriding Effect - Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, Section 78 - Section 78 gives the Universities Act an overriding effect over other statutes. However, the court held that the Reservation Act, 1990, being a special law for reservation, prevails over the Universities Act, and the 2001 Rules, being a mode of selection adopted by the advertisement, must be followed. (Paras 9, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 2001 Rules, providing a preferential age bracket of 29-40 years for filling backlog vacancies reserved for SCs/STs, apply to appointments made by universities under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, and whether the university's appointment of a meritorious candidate outside that age bracket was valid when the advertisement expressly adopted the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that respondent No. 7, being the preferential candidate under Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, is entitled to appointment. The court held that when the advertisement expressly adopts the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection, the university is bound to follow the preferential age rule, and the appointment of the appellant, who was outside the age bracket, was illegal.
Law Points
- Preferential age rule
- Mode of selection
- Backlog vacancies
- Reservation Act
- 1990
- Universities Act
- 2000
- 2001 Rules
- Overriding effect
- Appointment of teachers
Case Details
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12345/2021
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J
Shailesh Madiyal, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Gagan Gupta, D.L. Chidananda
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service dispute between two ST candidates for appointment to a backlog vacancy post of Assistant Professor in English at Bangalore University.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the High Court's order directing appointment of respondent No. 7, who was within the preferential age bracket, and to uphold her own appointment based on merit.
Filing Reason
The appellant's appointment was set aside by the High Court because the university, having advertised the mode of selection as per the 2001 Rules, appointed the appellant who was not within the preferential age bracket of 29-40 years, instead of respondent No. 7 who was within that bracket.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 4923/2020 filed by respondent No. 7, setting aside the appellant's appointment and directing appointment of respondent No. 7. The Division Bench affirmed this in W.A. 190/2021 and 233/2021.
Issues
Whether the 2001 Rules, providing a preferential age bracket for backlog vacancies, apply to appointments made by universities under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000.
Whether the university's appointment of a meritorious candidate outside the preferential age bracket was valid when the advertisement expressly adopted the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the 2001 Rules do not apply to university appointments as the Universities Act has its own procedure under Sections 53 and 54, and Section 78 gives it overriding effect.
The respondent-State argued that the Reservation Act, 1990 applies to universities as they are 'establishments in public sector', and the 2001 Rules, being a mode of selection adopted in the advertisement, must be followed.
Ratio Decidendi
When an advertisement for appointment expressly adopts the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection, the appointing authority is bound to follow the preferential age rule under Rule 6, which gives preference to candidates within the age bracket of 29-40 years over meritorious candidates outside that bracket. The 2001 Rules apply to universities because the Reservation Act, 1990 defines universities as 'establishments in public sector' and Section 4(1A) extends the rules to all establishments.
Judgment Excerpts
The advertisement provides that qualifications for the post shall be as provided under the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016. The ‘Mode of Selection’, or the method of selection, as specified in the advertisement, is important. It is provided that the list of selected candidates will be prepared as per the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001
Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules provides for a preference in favour of candidates between the age bracket of 29 and 40 years. In other words, amongst the eligible candidates belonging to a scheduled tribe, those who fall within the age bracket of 29-40 years, would have a preferential right to be appointed over and above even meritorious candidates.
The Ld. Single Judge of the High Court, by a judgment dated 16.01.2021, allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellant’s selection and appointment on the ground that the university specifically declared in the advertisement that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules. Therefore, its appointment of the appellant, who did not fall in the age bracket of 29-40 years, was illegal.
Procedural History
The appellant was appointed by Bangalore University on merit for a backlog ST post. Respondent No. 7 challenged this in Writ Petition No. 4923/2020 before the Karnataka High Court. The Single Judge allowed the petition on 16.01.2021, setting aside the appellant's appointment and directing appointment of respondent No. 7. The appellant and university filed writ appeals (W.A. 190/2021 and 233/2021), which were dismissed by the Division Bench. The appellant then filed the present Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC's and ST's) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001: Rule 6
- Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000: Section 53, Section 54, Section 78
- Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990: Section 2(2), Section 2(3)(vi), Section 4, Section 4(1A)
- Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978:
- UGC Regulations, 2010:
- UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016:
