Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals by special leave against an order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated April 29, 1994 in Application Nos. 3727/82 and batch. The dispute concerned amendments to Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, introducing reservation in appointments and posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Tribes and Other Backward Classes. A second proviso introduced on April 1, 1992 provided for determination and implementation of backlog vacancies in promotional quota with effect from April 27, 1978. The Tribunal held that the first proviso could not be made retrospective and that the second proviso was ultra vires because no guidelines had been provided for working out the rules. The Supreme Court reversed the Tribunal. It held that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 are legislative in character and therefore can be made with retrospective effect, citing B.S. Vadera v. Union of India and several other decisions. The Tribunal's view was declared ex-facie illegal and unsustainable. On the second issue, the Court held that the operation of the rules does not depend on guidelines, and merely because guidelines have not been provided, the second proviso does not become non est. At best, it remains unworkable until guidelines under Article 16(4) are issued. The Court noted that guidelines had not been provided, including preparing the roster, identifying backlog vacancies and placement of officers, though they were annexed for the first time along with a counter-affidavit. Consequently, the Court held that whatever promotions had been given would remain valid subject to laying down of guidelines and working out of backlog vacancies. The State Government was directed to complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the order, and adjustments between general and reserved candidates were to be made in accordance with the guidelines and law. The appeals were allowed to that extent, with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Retrospective Operation of Rules - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 309 proviso; Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, Rule 8 proviso - The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal held that the first proviso to Rule 8 could not be made retrospective. The Supreme Court held that rules made under proviso to Article 309 are legislative in character and can be made with retrospective effect, following B.S. Vadera and other decisions. Held that the Tribunal's view is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable. (Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Requirement of Guidelines for Backlog Vacancies - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 16(4); Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, second proviso to Rule 8 - The Tribunal struck down second proviso as ultra vires due to absence of guidelines. The Supreme Court held that operation of rules does not depend on guidelines; at best, the rule remains unworkable until guidelines are issued. State directed to formulate guidelines under Article 16(4) and complete exercise within three months. Held that absence of guidelines does not render rule non est/ultra vires. (Not mentioned) C) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Adjustment of Promotions - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 16(4), 335; Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, Rule 8 - Promotions already made under second proviso to remain valid subject to laying down of guidelines and working out of backlog vacancies. Adjustment between general and reserved candidates in SC/ST/OBC categories to be done as per guidelines and law. State directed to complete within three months. Held that promotions subject to fitment and adjustment. (Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution can be made with retrospective effect; whether second proviso to Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 becomes non est/ultra vires for want of guidelines under Article 16(4).
Final Decision
Appeals allowed to the extent indicated. Tribunal's view that rules under proviso to Article 309 cannot be retrospective is set aside as ex-facie illegal. Second proviso to Rule 8 is not non est or ultra vires merely for absence of guidelines; at best it remains unworkable until guidelines under Article 16(4) are issued. State Government directed to formulate guidelines and complete the exercise within three months from receipt of order. Promotions already made under second proviso remain valid subject to laying down of guidelines and working out of backlog vacancies, with adjustment between general and reserved candidates in SC/ST/OBC categories as per guidelines and law. No costs.
Law Points
- Rules made under proviso to Article 309 are legislative in character and can be made with retrospective effect
- absence of guidelines under Article 16(4) does not render rule non est but at best unworkable
- State must formulate guidelines to implement backlog reservation in promotions
- promotions made under second proviso remain valid subject to adjustment
