Summary
The recruitment rules did not require vacancies for undergraduate Home Science lecturers to be broken down by postgraduate specialisation. A candidate with a master’s degree in Home Science qualified regardless of specialisation, and the Tribunal and High Court could not add a subject-wise condition based on policy preferences absent from the rules.
Issues
- Whether the recruitment rules required an advertisement for undergraduate Home Science lecturers to specify vacancies by postgraduate specialisation within Home Science.
- Whether the Tribunal and High Court could quash the recruitment notification based on educational-policy considerations not required by the governing rules.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3 and 4, Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993Rule 3 required a master’s degree in the relevant subject and eligibility testing; Rule 4 required vacancies to be notified under each subject. For undergraduate teaching, Home Science itself was the relevant subject; the Rules did not require vacancies to be split by postgraduate specialisation within it. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 14)
Held
- The applicable rule, not a tribunal’s or court’s view of a more beneficial recruitment policy, governs the qualification and selection process. A service tribunal must first determine what the governing rule requires and cannot add a condition that the rule does not prescribe. (¶¶ 12, 17)
- The vacancies were for lecturers teaching Home Science at undergraduate level. A master’s degree in Home Science satisfied the qualification, regardless of the candidate’s specialisation within that degree. The rule requiring vacancies to be notified under each subject did not require subcategories within Home Science. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 14, 16)
- The High Court’s reliance on specialisation needed for postgraduate study and on a separate executive-post advertisement was misplaced; neither changed the qualification or notification requirements for undergraduate lecturers. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court and Administrative Tribunal orders quashing the recruitment notification were set aside, and the recruitment process and appointments were affirmed. No order as to costs.