Supreme Court Upholds Preference for Age in Backlog Vacancy Appointments: Chaitra Nagammanavar vs. State of Karnataka (2 May 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 367

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a university disregard its own advertisement and appoint a candidate based on merit, even when the advertisement specifies that appointments will be made based on age preference rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law dispute concerning the appointment of an Assistant Professor in Bangalore University. The core issue revolved around whether the age preference rule under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2001 Rules’) applies to university appointments.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar. The judgment was authored by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

Bangalore University issued an advertisement on 21 March 2018, for filling backlog vacancies for posts reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Among the 34 posts for Assistant Professors, one post in the English department was reserved for an ST candidate. The advertisement stated that qualifications would be as per UGC Regulations, 2010, and the UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016. It also specified that the selection would be as per the 2001 Rules, which provide a preference for candidates aged between 29 and 40 years.

The appellant, Chaitra Nagammanavar, and respondent No. 7 were both ST candidates eligible for the post. While the appellant was higher in merit, respondent No. 7 was within the 29-40 age bracket. Despite the advertisement specifying the 2001 Rules, the university appointed the appellant based on merit. Respondent No. 7 challenged this appointment in the High Court of Karnataka.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Karnataka’s Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 7, setting aside the appellant’s appointment. The Single Judge held that the university was bound by its advertisement to follow the 2001 Rules, which gave preference to candidates between 29 and 40 years of age. Consequently, the High Court directed the appointment of Respondent No. 7.

The appellant and the university filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, affirming that Respondent No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of several key legislations:

• The Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978: This Act governs civil services in the state of Karnataka.
• The Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Reservation Act, 1990’): This Act provides for reservations in favor of SCs, STs, and OBCs in state civil services and establishments.
  • Section 2(2) of the Reservation Act, 1990 defines “appointing authority” as the authority empowered to make appointments.
  • Section 2(3)(vi) of the Reservation Act, 1990 defines “establishments in public sector” to include universities established by state law.
  • Section 4(1) of the Reservation Act, 1990 mandates reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in civil services and posts under the state.
    • Section 4(1A) was introduced by way of an amendment which states that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the appointing authority shall identify unfilled vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in any service or post in an establishment in public sector as existing on the date of commencement of the Second Amendment Act, 2004 and take action to fill them as a one time measure within a specified time. The manner in which the number of vacancies is to be computed, the procedure for filling such vacancies and the time within which action is to be taken shall be as specified by notification by the State Government.
• The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Universities Act’): This Act governs the functioning of universities in Karnataka.
  • Section 53 of the Universities Act recognizes a ‘Board of Appointment’ to be the appointing authority for teachers and other employees of the university.
  • Section 54 of the Universities Act provides that notwithstanding anything in Section 53, but subject to the rules and orders of the State Government, appointments to the posts of professors, readers, principals, and assistant professors shall be made by the syndicate as per the scheme evolved by the UGC.
  • Section 78 of the Universities Act gives it an overriding effect over other statutes.
• The Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2001 Rules’): These rules provide a preference for candidates between 29 and 40 years of age for filling backlog vacancies reserved for SCs and STs.

The interplay between these statutes and rules, particularly the applicability of the 2001 Rules to university appointments, is central to the case.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The university is governed by the Universities Act and the statutes made thereunder, not by the 2001 Rules, which are made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978.
• The advertisement stating that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be under the 2001 Rules was a mistake.
• The university, being an autonomous institution, cannot be bound by rules intended to regulate State Civil Services.
• Section 78 of the Universities Act gives it an overriding effect over other laws.

University’s Arguments:

• The University took the same stand as the appellant.
• Section 53 of the Universities Act is the guiding principle for appointments to the post of ‘teachers’ in the university.
• The university is governed by the Universities Act and the statutes made thereunder, not by the 2001 Rules, which are made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978.

Respondent No. 7’s Arguments:

• The mandate under Section 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, for the government to specify the method and manner of selection was fulfilled when the university itself advertised that the ‘Mode of Selection’ would be as per the 2001 Rules.
• This was the natural consequence of introducing sub-Section (1A), which was to enable universities to follow the 2001 Rules.
• The State Government had issued letters calling upon the university to follow the 2001 Rules.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the advertisement issued by the university intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Civil Services Act suffers from any illegality.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the university was bound by its advertisement to follow the 2001 Rules. The Court reasoned that:

• The insertion of Section 4(1A) in the Reservation Act, 1990, extended the mandate of the 2001 Rules to universities.
• The purpose of the amendment was to apply the 2001 Rules to universities, as evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR).
• The university’s conduct in not responding to the government’s demands to implement the 2001 Rules indicated its acceptance of the applicable law and policy.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the advertisement was a mistake and held that the university was bound to comply with what it had declared in the advertisement.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978: The Court recognised that the 2001 rules were framed under this Act.
• The Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990: The Court relied on the amendment to this Act, specifically Section 4(1A) to hold that universities were covered by the mandate to fill backlog vacancies as per the rules prescribed by the government.
• The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000: The court held that the Universities Act is subject to the rules and orders of the State Government for reservation of appointments.
• The Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001: The Court held that the university was bound by these rules since it had itself mentioned in the advertisement that the selection would be as per these rules.
• Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1: The court referred to this case to acknowledge the limitations in creating supernumerary posts.
• N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157: The court referred to this case to acknowledge that there are extraordinary situations where discretion can be exercised to create supernumerary posts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Statutory Mandate: The Court emphasized the statutory mandate under Section 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, which brought universities under the purview of the 2001 Rules for filling backlog vacancies.
• University’s Advertisement: The Court held the university accountable for its own advertisement, which explicitly stated that the selection process would be as per the 2001 Rules.
• Government Directives: The Court noted that the State Government had consistently directed the university to follow the 2001 Rules, indicating that the university was aware of its obligations.
• Purpose of the Amendment: The Court highlighted that the amendment to the Reservation Act, 1990, was specifically intended to extend the 2001 Rules to universities, as evidenced by the SOR.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the law and the statutory obligations, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the University was bound by its own advertisement and that the 2001 Rules were applicable to the University.

The Court addressed the unusual situation where the appellant had continued in office for over four years despite the court orders. While acknowledging the rightful claim of respondent No. 7, the Court recommended that the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant, recognizing that the situation arose due to the university’s conduct.

Key Takeaways

• Universities are bound by their own advertisements and must adhere to the specified selection criteria.
• The age preference rule under the 2001 Rules applies to the filling of backlog vacancies in universities.
• The amendment to the Reservation Act, 1990, has extended the applicability of the 2001 Rules to universities.
• Universities must follow the directions of the State Government regarding the filling of backlog vacancies.
• The Supreme Court has acknowledged the possibility of creating supernumerary posts in extraordinary situations to address injustices caused by administrative errors.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment clarifies the applicability of reservation rules to university appointments, ensuring that backlog vacancies are filled as per the prescribed norms.
• It reinforces the principle that institutions must adhere to their own advertised rules and procedures.
• It sets a precedent for addressing unusual situations arising from administrative errors, allowing for the creation of supernumerary posts in exceptional cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the university may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant, acknowledging the unusual situation that arose due to the university’s conduct.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that universities are bound by their own advertisements and must adhere to the specified selection criteria, including the age preference rule under the 2001 Rules, when filling backlog vacancies. The amendment to the Reservation Act, 1990, has extended the applicability of the 2001 Rules to universities.

Change in Previous Position of Law: This judgment clarifies the applicability of the 2001 Rules to universities, which was previously uncertain. The amendment to the Reservation Act, 1990, and the court’s interpretation of it, has brought universities under the ambit of these rules for filling backlog vacancies, thus solidifying the position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision that the university was bound by its advertisement to follow the 2001 Rules. The judgment clarified that the age preference rule applies to university appointments for filling backlog vacancies, and that universities must adhere to their own advertised procedures. The Court also acknowledged the need to address the unusual situation of the appellant continuing in office for over four years and recommended that the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her.