Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 – Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of – Recruitment notification was issued by the appellants for the appointment of High School Assistant Teacher Grade-2 – In terms of the notification the eligibility criteria for Hindi Language Assistant in Government High School was: (i) One must be a holder of Bachelor Degree with Hindi as major subject and (ii) One must be holder of degree in Education with the concerned subject or subjects as teaching methods – Respondent No.1 was not selected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment – Both Tribunal and High Court held that Respondent No.1 was entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Language Assistant – On appeal, held: The recruitment rules make a specific category for a Hindi Language Assistant by requiring a candidate to not only hold a Bachelor’s Degree but hold such a degree with Hindi as a major subject – The additional requirement under the Recruitment Rules is that the candidate must hold a degree in Education with the concerned subject (Hindi) as a teaching method – Respondent No.1 is a holder of a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject but does not hold a B.Ed Degree with Hindi as a teaching method – That being so, the appellants were justified in not accepting the candidature of Respondent No.1 and the Tribunal as well as the High Court were in error in granting relief to Respondent No.1 – Service Law. Interpretation of Statutes – Principle of harmonious construction – Primacy given to, and application of special law as against general law – Held: If a special provision is made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from general provision – This principle is fully applicable to the Karnataka Education Department Services Rules which has carved out a special set of eligibility requirements for a Hindi Language Assistant and there is no challenge to such a specific requirement – Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Both the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court were in error and took a rather narrow and restricted view of the eligibility criteria. [Para 9] [913-D]
2. There is no doubt that under the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002, a Bachelor’s Degree in Arts in the concerned language is a pre-requisite as also a B.Ed Degree but as far as a Hindi Language Assistant is concerned, the eligibility criterion for that post has been singled out with other requirements. The Recruitment Rules make a specific category for a Hindi Language Assistant by requiring a candidate to not only hold a Bachelor’s Degree but hold such a degree with Hindi as a major subject and not only as an optional subject. The additional requirement under the Recruitment Rules is that the candidate must hold a degree in Education with the concerned subject (Hindi) as a teaching method. In other words, the requirement for a Hindi Language Assistant is much stricter than it is for any other language such as Kannada, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil etc. Essentially, the Recruitment Rules have carved out a special set of requirements for a Hindi Language Assistant and there is no challenge to such a specific requirement. [Para 10] [913-E-G]
3. It is well settled that if a special provision is made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision. This principle is fully applicable to The Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 and the provision relating to the post of a Hindi Language Assistant. [Para 12] [914-D]
4. The undisputed facts are that although Respondent No.1 does have a Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi as a major subject, but he does not have a B.Ed with Hindi as a teaching method. That being so, the appellants were justified in not accepting the candidature of Respondent No.1 and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court were in error in granting relief to Respondent No.1. [Para 13] [914-E]
Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC
800 ; Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1424 ;
St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 – referred to.
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.