High Court of Karnataka Quashes Provisional Selection List in University Appointment Due to Non-Compliance with Reservation Roster — Backlog Posts Must Be Filled in Accordance with Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or Posts (Amendment) Act, 2017.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 121
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shri Venu S. A., challenged a provisional selection list dated 12-07-2023 issued by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, for the post of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering. The University had issued a notification to fill backlog posts, but the provisional list did not comply with the reservation roster under the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or Posts (Amendment) Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the selection was arbitrary and violative of statutory reservation norms. The respondents, including the University and the selected candidate, contended that the list was provisional and subject to finalization. The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the parties, found that the selection list indeed failed to adhere to the reservation roster for backlog posts. The Court quashed the provisional list and directed the University to redo the selection process in accordance with the applicable reservation rules. The judgment emphasized that public appointments must strictly follow statutory reservation policies to ensure equality and compliance with the law.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Reservation in Appointments - Backlog Posts - The University issued a notification to fill backlog posts of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering, but the provisional selection list did not adhere to the statutory reservation roster as per the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or Posts (Amendment) Act, 2017. The Court held that the selection list was illegal and liable to be quashed, directing the University to redo the selection in accordance with the reservation roster. (Paras 1-10)

B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the provisional selection list. The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to set aside the list for non-compliance with statutory reservation requirements, emphasizing that public appointments must follow the mandated reservation policy. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the provisional selection list issued by the University for the post of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering is valid when it does not comply with the reservation roster for backlog posts under the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or Posts (Amendment) Act, 2017.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court quashed the provisional selection list dated 12-07-2023 and directed the University to redo the selection in accordance with the reservation roster under the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or Posts (Amendment) Act, 2017.

Law Points

  • Reservation roster
  • backlog posts
  • provisional selection list
  • non-compliance with statutory reservation
  • writ of certiorari
  • Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (KAR) (08) 31

WP No. 104330 of 2023 (S-RES)

2023-08-16

M. Nagaprasanna

Sri. Taranath Poojary, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Manjunath Y. Shirur, Advocate for Petitioner; Sri. Ramachandra A. Mali, Advocate for R1-R2; Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for R3; Sri. Prashant Matapathi, Advocate for R4

Shri. Venu S. A.

University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad; Vice-Chancellor/Chairman of Selection Committee; State of Karnataka; Dr. D. Nagraju M.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a provisional selection list for the post of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering issued by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 12-07-2023 insofar as it relates to appointment to the cadre of Assistant Professor of Food Engineering.

Filing Reason

The provisional selection list did not comply with the reservation roster for backlog posts under the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or Posts (Amendment) Act, 2017.

Issues

Whether the provisional selection list for Assistant Professor in Food Engineering is valid when it does not comply with the reservation roster for backlog posts.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the selection list was arbitrary and violative of statutory reservation norms. Respondents contended that the list was provisional and subject to finalization.

Ratio Decidendi

Public appointments for backlog posts must strictly comply with the statutory reservation roster; any selection list that deviates from such roster is illegal and liable to be quashed.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question provisional list of selected candidate to the post of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering in the respondent/University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad by Notification dated 12-07-2023.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging the provisional selection list. The court heard preliminary arguments and passed the order on 16-08-2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or Posts (Amendment) Act, 2017:
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals NCLAT Allows Section 95 Application Against Personal Guarantors in IBC Case — Limitation Period for Filing Application Under Section 95 Commences from Date of Default in Demand Notice Under Guarantee Contract, Not from Date of NCLT Order Admitting ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Land Owner's Petition Against Arbitrator's Limitation Ruling in National Highways Act Compensation Dispute. The court held that no limitation period is prescribed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and th...