The case revolves around a dispute regarding the appointment of an Assistant Professor in the English department at Bangalore University, reserved for a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate. The university advertised that the selection process would follow the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SCs and STs) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. However, despite the advertisement, the university appointed a candidate based on merit, not falling within the age bracket preferred under Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules. This led to legal challenges from another eligible ST candidate, resulting in a series of judgments from the High Court of Karnataka.

The judgments upheld that the university's advertisement obligating adherence to the 2001 Rules was binding. Despite arguments asserting the autonomy of the university, it was deemed subject to the Reservation Act, 1990, and its subsequent amendments, requiring compliance with the 2001 Rules. The court dismissed appeals and upheld the appointment of the aggrieved candidate, urging the university to address the situation of the initially appointed candidate, suggesting the creation of a supernumerary post as a remedy.

In conclusion, the court affirmed the decisions of the High Court, dismissing the appeals, with no costs awarded. The university was advised to address the situation of both candidates in a just manner.

1. Introduction

A routine service dispute involving competing claims for appointment was transformed into a pleasurable discourse by the newly designated senior advocates of this court, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Mr. Gagan Gupta. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, appearing for the respondent-State, rose to the occasion and made crisp, clear, and categorical arguments to match the submissions made by the senior counsels.

2. Background and Facts

The facts relevant for consideration are that Banglore University, under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, issued an advertisement in 2018 for filling up backlog vacancies, including a post reserved for a scheduled tribe (ST) candidate in the English department.

3. Mode of Selection and Controversy

The advertisement specified that the mode of selection would be as per the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. Rule 6 of these rules provides preference to candidates aged between 29 and 40 years belonging to the ST community.

4. Legal Proceedings and Judgments

The appellant was appointed based on merit, while respondent no. 7, within the age bracket specified by Rule 6, challenged the appointment. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court set aside the appellant's appointment, directing respondent no. 7's appointment.

5. Legal Framework and Applicability

Key legislations such as the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990, and the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 are discussed. The controversy lies in whether the 2001 Rules are applicable to university appointments.

6. Amendment to Reservation Act, 1990

An amendment in 2004 aimed to bring universities within the mandate of the Reservation Act, 1990, directing the identification and filling of backlog vacancies for SCs and STs.

7. Arguments and Rulings

Senior counsels argued that the University Act overrides other laws, while respondent no. 7's counsel asserted that the advertisement specifying the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection was valid.

8. Analysis and Conclusion

The court ruled that the University was bound to comply with the advertised mode of selection. It dismissed the appeals, affirming respondent no. 7's appointment. The court suggested the university consider creating a supernumerary post for the appellant to address the unusual situation.

9. Final Decision

The court dismissed the appeals and made observations regarding the appellant's continued employment and potential remedies.

10. Conclusion

In conclusion, the court upheld respondent no. 7's appointment and made recommendations regarding the appellant's situation, emphasizing the need for fairness and justice.

11. Costs and Final Orders

The court declared there shall be no order as to costs and concluded the proceedings.