CASE TITLE:CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR VsSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
CASE NO: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6772-6773 OF 2023
ORDER ON: May 2nd, 2024
QUORUM: Justice. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, Justice. ARAVIND KUMAR
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Facts, leading to the present case are that On 21.03.2018 Banglore University, constituted under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, issued an advertisement for filling up vacancies to posts reserved for Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, The advertisement provides, The ‘Mode of Selection’, to be as per ‘2001 Rules’, Therefore, Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules provides for a preference In Favor of candidates between the age bracket of 29 and 40 Years. however, instead of the prescribed rules, it followed Its own procedure and proceeded to appoint the appellant on the Basis of merit. Respondent no. 7 naturally challenged the Appointment of the appellant by Writ Petition No. 4923/2020 before the High Court of Karnataka. 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 appointment of the appellant, who did not fall in the age bracket Of 29-40years, was illegal. Consequently, Respondent No. 7, Who is the preferential candidate, was directed to be appointed. The appellant and the university filed their respective writ Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court, however, the said court upheld the decision of the single judge of HC, Thus, the present Civil Appeal by the appellant, who was the Originally appointed candidate
CONTENTIONS Of APPELLANT
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the advertisement of the university, declaring that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be under the 2001 Rules, is a mistake. He calls it a mistake because the university shall be governed by the Universities Act and the Statutes made thereunder and not the 2001 Rules, particularly when these Rules are made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978.8 The university is an autonomous institution and can never be bound, much less governed, by rules intended to regulate State Civil Services, is his argument.
Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the university, has taken the same stand as the appellant. He submitted that Sec. 78 of the Universities Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of this law over other laws. He has drawn attention to Sec. 53 of the Universities Act as the guiding principle for appointments to the post of ‘teachers’ in the university, which includes assistant professors, readers, and professors.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
Mr. Gagan Gupta learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 7, submits that the mandate under Sec. 4(1A) on the Government to specify the method and manner of selection by the issuance of a notification stood fulfilled when the university itself advertised by notifying that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules. He also submitted that this is the natural consequence of the purpose and object of introducing sub-Section (1A), which was to enable the universities to follow the 2001 Rules. He also relied on certain letters written by the State government calling upon the university to follow the mandate of the 2001 Rules.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990–reservations of appointment and posts
- 54 of the Universities Act,- appointments to several posts in a university shall be laid down by the Government.
LEGAL ISSUES
- whether the advertisement issued by the university intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Civil Services Act suffers from any illegality?
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court considered the view that, to extend the provision of the 2001 Rules to universities, Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990 was introduced. The intent behind the amendment is to vest the power of specifying the method, procedure, and time for identifying, filling, and completing the same to the State and this is also evident from Sec. 54 of the Universities Act, which suggests that appointments to several posts in a university shall be laid down by the Government. The court also satisfied that, There have been letters by the Government demanding compliance with the 2001 Rules while filling up the vacancies for posts for SCs/STs and OBCs, Even before the advertisement was issued, there was a letter addressing the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, State of Karnataka, to the university instructing the latter to fill up backlog teaching posts as per the 2001 Rules and the guidelines prescribed by the university. The court observed that at this very stage, similar letters were addressed by the State Government to the university, directing that the procedure contemplated under the 2001 Rules must be followed for filling up the vacancies of SC/ST and other backward classes in the university. Considering these letters, the court opined that issue relating to the legality and validity of the university’s advertisement is beyond doubt. Therefore the court also rejected the submission made by the appellant through their counsel Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, for the reasons stated above, the decision given by Ld. Single Judge of the High Court and division Bench is correct, and Having considered the matter in detail the court is of the view that The appeals must, therefore, fail, and hereby dismissed the same.
Later after the appeal was dismissed the court realised that the appellant who was appointed in contravention of Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, had continued in office during the subsistence of the writ proceeding and till date without any interruption. Therefore the court held that the university must also address the concern of the appellant. In order to obviate the injustice caused to the appellant this is an extraordinary situation for exercising such discretion therefore, the court left the decision to the university on this issue. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Appeal against the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru is dismissed, subject to the observations made in the previous paragraph.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
REVIEWED BY- SOWMYA. R
