Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 – ss.4(1A), 2(2), 2(3)(vi) – Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – ss.53, 54, 78 – Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 – Filling up of backlog vacancies of SCs and STs as per the advertisement issued by the Bangalore University – Applicability of the 2001 Rules to appointments by the University governed by the Universities Act, 2000 – Appellant and respondent No.7, both ST candidates were eligible for appointment to the solitary post of Assistant Professor (English) reserved for a candidate belonging to the STs – While the appellant was higher in merit, respondent no.7 was within the age bracket of 29-40 years, and thus, a preferential candidate under the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/method of Selection as per the advertisement – However, the university following its own procedure appointed the appellant on the basis of merit – High Court held that respondent No.7 is entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules – Correctness: Held: The controversy about filling up backlog vacancies of SCs and STs by the university came to an end with the insertion of Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990 – In fact, the provocation for introducing sub-Section (1A) was that the mandate of the 2001 Rules was not followed by the universities – In order to extend the provision of the 2001 Rules to universities, sub-Section (1A) was introduced – Thus, there was no uncertainty left after the introduction of sub-Section (1A) to Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act, 1990, requiring an establishment, i.e., the university, to take action for filling the backlog vacancies as a one-time measure by following the method prescribed by the Government – The purpose and object of the amendment was amply clear from its statements of objects and reasons contemplating the application of the 2001 Rules for the universities – The conduct of the university in not responding to the categorical demands of the Government to implement the 2001 Rules is conclusive about its acceptance of the applicable law and the policy, and therefore, the advertisement – Hence, the requirement of the Government to specify the manner, procedure and time for identifying, filling backlog vacancies and completing the same was amply clear to the university – It is with this view that the university advertised that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules – Compliance with the 2001 Rules was mandatory – University was bound to comply with what was declared in its advertisement – The 2001 Rules will be the guiding principles for the selection in question – High Court rightly held that respondent No. 7 is entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules – Appeals against impugned judgment dismissed – However, the appellant has been working for almost four and a half years – University may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her. [Paras 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.