Supreme Court Upholds Preference Rule in Special Recruitment for Backlog Reserved Vacancies

In Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2024 Latest Caselaw 292 SC), the Supreme Court held that universities are bound to follow the selection procedure expressly prescribed in their recruitment advertisements. The Court upheld the application of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for Persons Belonging to the SCs and STs) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 for filling backlog vacancies and affirmed that a preferential candidate under the Rules was entitled to appointment over a more meritorious candidate. 

Bangalore University issued an advertisement in 2018 to fill backlog vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. One post of Assistant Professor in the English Department was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The advertisement specifically stated that the mode of selection would be governed by the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for Persons Belonging to the SCs and STs) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. Under Rule 6 of these Rules, preference was to be given to candidates between the ages of 29 and 40 years. The appellant secured higher merit but did not fall within the preferred age bracket. Respondent No. 7 satisfied the age criterion and claimed preference under the Rules. Despite this, the University selected the appellant based solely on merit. Respondent No. 7 challenged the appointment before the Karnataka High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench held that the University had violated its own recruitment advertisement and directed that Respondent No. 7 be appointed. The appellant challenged these decisions before the Supreme Court. 

Whether Bangalore University was bound to follow the Karnataka Special Recruitment Rules, 2001, as declared in its recruitment advertisement, while filling backlog reserved vacancies. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeals. The Court observed that:

•The purpose of introducing Section 4(1A) of the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 was to ensure that backlog vacancies in universities were filled in accordance with the Special Recruitment Rules. 

•Although the State Government had not issued a separate notification under Section 4(1A), it had repeatedly directed universities through official communications to follow the 2001 Rules while filling backlog vacancies. 

•Bangalore University itself expressly declared in its advertisement that the mode of selection would be governed by the 2001 Rules. 

•Having made such a declaration, the University was bound to follow it and could not subsequently ignore the prescribed selection criteria. 

•Respondent No. 7, being within the preferential age group specified under Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, was legally entitled to appointment. •

The appellant's appointment was contrary to the recruitment rules and therefore could not be sustained. 

The Supreme Court:

•Dismissed the appeals. 

•Upheld the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. 

•Confirmed that Respondent No. 7 was entitled to appointment to the post. 

•Observed that, considering the appellant had served for more than four years due to interim orders, the University may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her, although no such direction was mandatorily issued. 

The judgment reinforces that recruiting authorities must strictly adhere to the terms of their recruitment advertisements and cannot deviate from the prescribed selection procedure. It also clarifies the applicability of the Karnataka Special Recruitment Rules to backlog vacancies in universities and underscores the importance of ensuring that reservation policies and statutory preferences are implemented consistently and fairly.