Summary
Bangalore University was bound by its advertised adoption of the 2001 special backlog-recruitment rules, including preference for eligible candidates aged twenty-nine to forty. Higher merit alone could not override that preference. The reservation statute’s extension to universities, governmental directions and the advertisement together supported application despite absence of a formal notification. The preferred candidate’s appointment was upheld; the University could consider a supernumerary post for the displaced appointee, but was not compelled to create one.
Issues
- Whether special backlog-recruitment rules applied to the advertised University post.
- Whether higher merit displaced the prescribed age preference.
- What equitable accommodation might be considered for the innocent appointee who had served under stays.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(2), 2(3)(vi) and 4(1A), Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990The amendment extended the backlog-filling mandate to universities as public-sector establishments. Its purpose, State directions and University adoption supported application of the specified recruitment method. (¶¶ 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Rule 6, Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for SCs and STs) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001Among eligible candidates for this backlog post, the prescribed twenty-nine-to-forty age preference governed over comparative merit alone. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- Both contestants were eligible ST candidates for the reserved English Assistant Professor post. The appellant ranked higher in merit, but respondent seven fell within the age-preference bracket under the rules expressly selected by the advertisement. The University could not announce that method and appoint solely by its own merit procedure. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
- Section 4(1A) addressed the earlier gap concerning universities and required backlog identification and filling as a one-time measure in the prescribed manner. Although no formal State notification specifying method, procedure and time was on record, the State repeatedly directed use of the 2001 Rules and the University expressly adopted them in its advertisement. (¶¶ 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19)
- The University’s claim that the advertisement was a mistake was rejected. The legislative purpose, governmental communications and University conduct made the applicable method clear; the University was bound by the 2001 Rules for this selection. The High Court correctly upheld the preferred candidate’s entitlement. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The displaced appointee had served continuously for about four and a half years under judicial stays and was not personally responsible for the University’s error. The University could consider a supernumerary post to accommodate her in this extraordinary situation; the Court left creation and necessary orders to its decision, without granting an unconditional continued appointment. (¶ 22)
- The appeals were dismissed subject to that accommodation observation, without costs. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Appeals dismissed; preferred candidate’s entitlement upheld. University may consider a supernumerary post for the displaced appointee; no costs.