Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on May 2, 2024 declared that the Karnataka state universities would be governed by the 2001 rules which provided for a preference in favour of candidates between the age bracket of 29 and 40 years, over and above even meritorious candidates in filling up backlog vacancies for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Aravind Kumar dismissed an appeal filed by Chaitra Nagammanavar, against the Karnataka High Court's single as well as division bench orders which quashed her appointment as assistant professor in English department of Bangalore University.

The court upheld the HC's finding that there was non compliance of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001.

Though the appellant was higher on merit, another candidate was within the age bracket of 29-40 years, and as such, was a preferential candidate as per Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, it noted.

The court directed the university to deal with the unfortunate and extraordinary situation arisen out of its conduct by creating a supernumerary post for her as she continued to work as assistant professor since 2019.

The bench rejected a contention by senior advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, appearing for the Bangalore University that Section 78 of the Universities Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of this law over other laws. He also contended Section 53 of the Universities Act was the guiding principle for appointments to the post of ‘teachers’ in the university, which included assistant professors, readers and professors. 

Senior advocate Shailesh Madiyal, representing the appellant, contended the university is an autonomous institution and can never be bound, much less governed, by rules intended to regulate State Civil Services.

He also said the declaration by the University in its advertisement in 2018 to fill up vacancies backlog vacancies for SCs and STs as per mode of selection under the 2001 Rules was a mistake.

The court, however, held the university is bound to comply with what is declared in its advertisement, that is, the 2001 Rules will be the guiding principles for the selection.

It also listed out reasons for its conclusion firstly, there was no uncertainty left after the introduction of sub-Section (1A) to Section 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. 

Secondly, the purpose and object of the amendment was amply clear from its SOR contemplating the application of the 2001 Rules for the universities. Thirdly, the conduct of the university in not responding to the categorical demands of the Government through its letters on February 27, 2018, May 22, 2018 and June 09, 2021 to implement the 2001 Rules is conclusive about its acceptance of the applicable law and the policy, and therefore, the advertisement, it pointed out.

"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," the bench said.

In the case, the court, however, noted an unusual situation has arisen due to the conduct of the university as the appellant's appointment on December 27, 2019 continued for almost over four and half years as she managed to obtain stay on the High Court's judgment.

"The unfortunate situation has arisen not because of anything wrong attributable to the appellant, but due to the indifferent manner with which the university conducted itself. In order to obviate the injustice caused to the appellant, the university may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her," the bench ordered.

The court restituted the rightful position earned by another candidate as per the 2001 Rules.

"We are fully conscious of the limitations in creating such posts over and above the positions that are borne by a cadre, but this is an extraordinary situation for exercising such discretion. We leave it to the university to take a decision on this issue and pass the necessary orders," the bench said.