Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Supreme Court of India
Vidya K. vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
2024 INSC 137 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2899-2907 OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19633-19641/2013 SMT. VIDYA K. & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2936-2954 OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 34297-34315/2013 WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2908-2916 OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19942-19950/2013 WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2917-2935 OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31253-31271/2013 WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2955-2963 OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 34730-34738/2013 JUDGMENT
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The short question arising for our consideration is whether a
notification for filling up 18 posts of lecturers of Home Science in First
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2024.02.22
17:47:02 IST
Grade College run by State of Karnataka is liable to be quashed for not
Reason:
providing the breakup of the ‘subjects’ within Home Science. The
1
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal quashed the notification on theground that specifying the subject categories is necessary for
advertising the vacant posts 1. Writ Petitions2 filed by the Karnataka
Public Service Commission as well as the successful candidates were
dismissed by the High Court confirming the order of the Tribunal.
Thus, the present appeal.
3. Having examined the rules and regulations which govern the
process of recruitment, we found no difficulty in arriving at the
conclusion that the requirement, as assumed by the Tribunal and the
High Court, is not a mandate of the recruitment Rules. Even otherwise,
the Tribunal and the High Court have erroneously based their
conclusions on policy considerations relating to how such a breakup
would be beneficial to the candidates. For the reasons to follow, we
have allowed the appeals, set-aside the judgments and upheld the
recruitment process. Consequently, appointments made on the basis
of the advertisement are affirmed.
4. The short facts leading to the present appeal are as follows. The
Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter ‘KPSC’) issued a
notification on 24.12.2007 for filling up approximately 2500 posts of
1
Order dated 12.06.2009 passed in Applica�on No. 1002/2008 and Applica�on No. 2794/2008 by the Karnataka
Administra�ve Tribunal, Bangalore.
2
Judgment dated 28.03.2013 passed in W.P. Nos. 19495-503/2009 and W.P. Nos. 20289-20297/2009 connected with
W.P. No. 21474/2009 (S-KAT).
2
lecturers in the Government First Grade Colleges. Of the said posts, we
are concerned with the recruitment to 18 posts in the department of
Home Science. Following the advertisement, the appellants in the lead
matter and two other connected matters, having the required
qualification, were selected to the post of Home Science lecturer on
23.09.2008. In the meanwhile, respondent no. 8 approached the
Tribunal seeking quashing of the notification by filing an Application
on the ground that the breakup of the specialised subjects within Home
Science are not specified in the notification. There was no interim order
passed by the Tribunal, but the recruitment was made subject to the
outcome of the Application.
5. The Application was finally taken up for hearing and the Tribunal
by its order dated 12.06.2009 allowed the same and quashed the
advertisement dated 24.12.2007. The Tribunal held that – (i) Home
Science is not a subject, but a course which comprises of different
subjects; (ii) in the past, KPSC had released notifications specifying
vacancies against each specialisation, and appointments were also
made after notifying vacancies against each specialisation; and (iii) if
posts are not filled up subject-wise, and a lecturer possessing degree
in Home Science in a particular subject is made to teach students in
another subject, the education of the students would suffer.
3
6. Questioning the legality and validity of the Tribunal’s decision, the
appellants, who were successfully appointed candidates and KPSC filed
Writ Petitions before the High Court. By the order impugned herein, the
High Court dismissed the said Petitions. The reasoning of the High
Court is that – (i) though the notification dated 24.12.2007 specifies
subjects within the field of Arts and Science, for Home Science, no
subjects or specialisations were mentioned; (ii) the Karnataka
Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education)
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993, require that the vacancy must be
specified subject wise which was not done for Home Science; and (iii) if
any student wants to take up specialised subjects in his masters’
degree, he is required to have studied that subject, and therefore
providing the breakup of subjects within Home Science is necessary.
7. The appeals before us are by the appointed candidates, the State
of Karnataka and the KPSC. We have heard all the counsels for the
appellants and the respondents.
8. The issue as to whether the notification calling for applications for
recruitment to the 18 posts of lecturers in the department of Home
Science is illegal for not providing the subject wise specified categories,
would depend upon the Rules governing the recruitment process,
which are the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department
4
of Collegiate Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and the Karnataka
Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education)
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993. Rules 3 and 4 of the 1993 Rules
provide as follows: –
“3. Qualification and Age – No person shall be
eligible for recruitment under these rules unless
he, has –
(a) (i) Obtained a Master’s Degree in the
relevant subject with at least 55 per cent
marks or its equivalent grade;
(ii) been, declared successful in the
National Education Test”, provided
further that candidates possessing
Ph.D/M. Phil. are exempted from
appearing for NET.
(b)…
4. Notification of vacancies – Appointing Authority
shall notify the vacancies under each subject to the
Karnataka Public Service Commission which shall
make the selection in accordance with these
rules.”
9. The advertisement dated 24.12.2007 refers to the relevant Rules,
and in fact, specifies all the requirements such as eligibility criteria,
selection methods, educational qualifications, age limit etc. Under the
educational qualification, the notification, which is in consonance with
Rule 3 stated above, specifies as under: –
“1. Must be a holder of a Master’s Degree in the
concerned subject with minimum of fifty five percent
of marks. Provided that in the respect of Scheduled5
Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates the
minimum marks shall be fifty percent.
2. Must have passed National Eligibility test
conducted by the U.G.C. or C.S.I.R of SLET
conducted by the State Government or any
authority accredited by the U.G.C.”
10. There is no dispute about the fact that the recruitment inter alia
is to the post of a lecturer in an undergraduate program in Government
First Grade Colleges. That, it is a lecturer post, is also evident from the
pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 that it carries. In fact, Rule 3 of the 1993
Rules provides qualifications which concerns appointment to the post
of lecturers in undergraduate programs. The reason for emphasising
the Rule position is to indicate that these lecturers, upon appointment,
would be teaching undergraduate students in the Home Science
department. The qualification is therefore, confined to, a post-
graduation degree in Home Science. As long as a candidate holds a
master’s degree in Home Science, he/she will be qualified for applying
to the post. It does not matter in which speciality within Home Science
the master’s degree is obtained.
11. We may conclude this issue by referring to a statement made by
the University Grants Commission (hereinafter ‘UGC’) in the affidavit
which is to the following effect: –
“12. That the present Special Leave Petition
pertains to the issue as to “whether the post of
6
lecturer in Home Science is required to be classified
subject-wise or not”.
13. In this regard, it is already submitted on behalf
of UGC that there is no separate subject wise
provision for the post of lecturers Home Science.”
12. Service jurisprudence must begin and end with rules that govern
the process of qualification, recruitment, selection, appointment and
conditions of service. Appointments to these posts are in the nature of
‘status’, which means that the service and its conditions can be
unilaterally changed by the amendment of the Rules. The first duty of
the Tribunal is to verify and examine the claims made by a party in the
context of the Rule that governs the field. If the Rule does not prescribe
a subject-wise speciality, there is no justification for the Tribunal or the
High Court to examine the propriety, or for that matter, the beneficial
effect of the rule.
13. The reasoning adopted by the High Court is as follows:
“14. The material on record discloses that all persons
who have basic degree in Science is not eligible for
being admitted to M.Sc. in Home Science. If any
student wants to take up specialized subject, he also
should have studied that subject as a subject in the
basic degree. Under these circumstances, though the
Government had asked the KPSC to recruit 18
Lecturers in Home Science, the KPSC being
specialized Agency should have known that while
inviting applications, mentioning of mere Home
Science would not be sufficient. In fact, the Rules on
which reliance is placed categorically states that the
candidate should have obtained a Master Degree in
the ‘relevant subject’ with at least 55% marks or its
equivalent grade and the Amended Rule (4) makes it
7
very clear that the Appointing Authority shall notify
the vacancies under ‘each subject’ to the KPSC which
shall make selection in accordance with these Rules.
Home Science is not a subject. Home Science is a
stream or genesis. In that view of the matter, the
notification calling for applications in Home Science is
vague. Only the specialized subject has to be
mentioned as they have mentioned in the case of Arts,
Science and Commerce. The candidate possessing
M.Sc. in Home Science with specialized subject is in
disadvantageous position to apply as against the
said vacancies. In their anxiety, if the applicant had
applied for the post of Lecturer in Home Science, that
cannot be held against her. The State and the KPSC
should act in accordance with law.”
14. It does not require detailed reasoning to find the error in the
judgment of the High Court. The fact that an undergraduate student
would be required to choose a specialisation when he takes up a PG
program has no bearing on the qualification of the lecturer teaching the
undergraduate students. Further, the assumption of the High Court
that Home Science is not a subject, instead it is a stream, or a genesis
has no application to the recruitment of lecturers for an undergraduate
program. For under-graduation, Home Science in itself is the subject.
In fact, UGC also considers Home Science as a subject, with subject
code no. 12, as per the latest information bulletin issued by it towards
National Eligibility Test conducted in December, 2023. To teach
undergraduates, the qualification prescribed is simply a post-
graduation degree in the subject of Home Science. We repeat, it does
8
not matter in which subject of Home Science that the post-graduation
is obtained.
15. The other reasoning given by the High Court is that on an earlier
occasion, the KPSC, while recruiting for the post of probationary
officers in the Dept. of Woman & Child Welfare, had mentioned the
qualification as Master’s Degree in Social Works or Home Science with
a specialization in Child Development or Nutrition. Even this reasoning
is misplaced because this advertisement was for recruitment to an
executive post. While recruiting a person as a probationary officer in
the Dept. of Woman & Child Welfare, the employer is certainly entitled
to indicate the specialisation that is expected. This has nothing to do
with advertisement for recruitment for the post of a lecturer.
16. Till date, the lecturers of Home Science in undergraduate program
run by the Government First Grade Colleges have been treated as one
cadre and recruitment to the posts were advertised as such. If one has
to follow the logic adopted by the High Court, then the entire
notification will collapse as the subjects of History, Economics, Political
Science, Sociology etc. are also mentioned without the so-called
specialisations and they must be set aside by the same logic. For
example, History has its specialised subjects in post-graduation such
as Ancient History, Archaeology, Epigraphy, Modern Indian History,
9
World History, European History, South-east Asian History, West Asian
History etc. The simple answer is that for under graduation, History is
a subject in itself.
17. We conclude by holding that the High Court committed an error
in not focussing on what the Rule provides for and whether the
advertisement is in consonance with the Rule. If the High Court had
confined itself to the basic features of judicial review, it would have
avoided committing the error that it did.
18. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeals and set aside
the judgement of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P.
Nos. 19495-19503/2009, W.P. Nos. 20289-20297/2009 connected
with W.P. No. 21474/2009 (S-KAT) dated 28.03.2013 and the order
dated 12.06.2009 passed in Application No. 1002/2008 and
Application No. 2794/2008 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
19. No order as to costs.
……..……………………………….J.
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]
.………….………………………….J.
[Aravind Kumar]
New Delhi;
February 22, 2024.
10