Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ appeal filed by three appellants against the judgment of a single judge in W.P.No.7190/2022, which upheld the State Government's decision to deny appointment to the post of Work Inspector based on an executive order abolishing the cadre. The appellants had been selected through a process conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) in 2016-2017, with their names appearing in the final select list dated 16.09.2017 after securing more than 25% marks. The State Government, via an endorsement dated 04.11.2021, refused appointment citing a Government Order dated 05.01.2021 that abolished the cadre of Work Inspector. The core legal issues involved whether the abolition of the cadre by executive order without amending the statutory rules under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011 was valid, and whether the selected candidates had a legitimate expectation of appointment. The appellants argued that the cadre was created under statutory rules and could only be abolished by amending those rules, and that the government's earlier affidavit in a related writ petition (W.P.No.3077/2019) had committed to appointing candidates with more than 25% marks, creating a legitimate expectation. They contended that the government's subsequent refusal was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents supported the single judge's view, asserting that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer a right to appointment, especially after the post was abolished. The court analyzed the provisions of the 2011 Rules, noting that the cadre of Work Inspector was statutorily created and that abolition required a statutory amendment, which had not occurred. It emphasized that the government's undertaking in the earlier affidavit bound it, and cancelling the selection process arbitrarily was impermissible. The court found that the executive order of abolition was ineffective without rule amendments, rendering the denial of appointment illegal. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the single judge's order, and directed the respondents to issue appointment orders to the appellants within eight weeks, holding that they were entitled to appointment based on their selection and the government's prior commitment.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - Appointment from Select List - Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011 - The appellants, selected for the post of Work Inspector with more than 25% marks, argued that the State Government's earlier undertaking in an affidavit to appoint such candidates created a legitimate expectation. The court held that the government cannot resile from its stand without valid reasons, and the selection process, once completed, cannot be arbitrarily cancelled. (Paras 13-16) B) Constitutional Law - Arbitrary State Action - Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India - The appellants contended that the State Government's refusal to appoint them based on an executive order abolishing the cadre was arbitrary and violated their constitutional rights. The court found that the abolition without amending statutory rules was illegal, rendering the government's action arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16. (Paras 17-18) C) Service Law - Abolition of Cadre - Statutory Rules Amendment - Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011 - The cadre of Work Inspector was created under the 2011 Rules, and the State Government issued an executive order dated 05.01.2021 to abolish it. The court held that abolition of a cadre can only be effected by amending the relevant statutory rules, and since no amendment was made, the executive order was ineffective. (Paras 13, 17) D) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari and Mandamus - Quashing of Endorsement and Direction for Appointment - The appellants filed a writ petition seeking to quash an endorsement dated 04.11.2021 that denied appointment and to issue appointment orders. The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the single judge's order, and directed the respondents to issue appointment orders to the appellants within eight weeks. (Paras 3, 20)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the abolition of the cadre of Work Inspector by executive order without amending the statutory rules is valid, and whether selected candidates with more than 25% marks have a right to appointment despite the abolition
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order dated 24.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.7190/2022, and directed the respondents to issue appointment orders to the appellants within eight weeks
