Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993 – Recruitment – Notification inviting application for the posts of lecturers of Home Science – Respondent no. 8 approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the notification on the ground that the breakup of the specialised subjects within Home Science are not specified in the notification – The Tribunal quashed the notification on the ground that specifying the subject categories is necessary for advertising the vacant posts – High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal – Propriety: Held: The advertisement dated 24.12.2007 refers to the relevant Rules, and in fact, specifies all the requirements such as eligibility criteria, selection methods, educational qualifications, age limit etc. – There is no dispute about the fact that the recruitment inter alia is to the post of a lecturer in an undergraduate program in Government First Grade Colleges – In fact, Rule 3 of the 1993 Rules provides qualifications which concerns appointment to the post of lecturers in undergraduate programs – The reason for emphasising the Rule position is to indicate that these lecturers, upon appointment, would be teaching undergraduate students in the Home Science department – The qualification is therefore, confined to, a postgraduation degree in Home Science – As long as a candidate holds a master’s degree in Home Science, he/she will be qualified for applying to the post – It does not matter in which speciality within Home Science the master’s degree is obtained – Appointments to these posts are in the nature of ‘status’, which means that the service and its conditions can be unilaterally changed by the amendment of the Rules – The first duty of the Tribunal is to verify and examine the claims made by a party in the context of the Rule that governs the field – If the Rule does not prescribe a subject-wise speciality, there is no justification for the Tribunal or the High Court to examine the propriety, or for that matter, the beneficial effect of the rule – Thus, the High Court committed an error in not focussing on what the Rule provides for and whether the advertisement is in consonance with the Rule – If the High Court had confined itself to the basic features of judicial review, it would have avoided committing the error that it did. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 17] Jurisprudence – Service Jurisprudence – Importance of Rules: Held: Service jurisprudence must begin and end with rules that govern the process of qualification, recruitment, selection, appointment and conditions of service. [Para 12]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.