CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [2024]

CITATION	[2024] 6 S.C.R. 471
YEAR OF JUDGMENT	2024
STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE	Constitutional Law, Civil Services Law, Education Law
APPELLANT	Chaitra Nagammanavar
RESPONDENT	State of Karnataka and others
BENCH	Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar

INTRODUCTION

The case of Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors (2024] 6 S.C.R. 471) revolves around the applicability of the Karnataka state civil services (unfilled vacancies reserved for persons belonging to the SCs and STs) (special recruitment) rules, 2001, to university appointments governed by the Karnataka state universities act 2000. In 2018, Bangalore University announced a recruitment drive to address backlog vacancies, including a position of assistant professor (English) reserved for scheduled tribes. The advertisement cited the 2001 rules, which give preference to candidates aged 29 to 40 years, even if they have lower merit. However, the university appointed the appellant based on merit, bypassing the respondent, who qualified for the age-based preference under the 2001 rules. This decision prompted a legal challenge, raising the issue of whether the university was required to follow the conditions outlined in its advertisement or if it could rely on its autonomy under the Universities Act 2000 to make the appointment. The Supreme Court reinforced the high court’s decision, stressing that adhering to the 2001 rules is non-negotiable. This stance was solidified after the 2004 amendment, which introduced section 4(1A) to the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (reservation of appointments, etc.) act 1990 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Shailesh Madiyal, senior advocate Vaibhav Sabharwal, Divija Mahajan, Sunidhi Hegde, and Mrigank Prabhakar, advocates, appeared on behalf of the appellant. 

Gagan Gupta, Anand Sanjay m. Muli senior advocates, Rahmathulla Kothwal, Siddika Aisha, Sara Parveen, Manju Jetley, D.L. Chidananda, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Ishan Roy Chaudhary, Shubhranshu Padhi, Suraj Kaushik, Shiva Swaroop, Agam Sharma, Ms Nuli, and Nuli were the advocates of the respondents. 

The relevant facts of the case reveal that Bangalore University, a statutory institution constituted under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, issued a public advertisement, soliciting applications for various vacancies.

The university advertised for filling up backlog vacancies in the post reserved for 34 assistant professor positions, including one reserved for the ST category in the English department. The qualifications for the post were provided under the UGC regulations, 2010 and UGC (4th Amendment) regulations, 2016. The rules provided the preference of candidates between the ages of 29 and 40 who would be appointed for the post. 

Both appellant and respondent belong to the ST category, but the appellant has higher merit, and the respondent met the age-based preference criteria (29-40 years) under Rule 6 of the 2001 rules.

The university selected the appellant disregarding his age. Respondent no. 7 fulfilled the preferential age criteria under the 2001 rules but was not appointed. So, he challenged the decision in the Karnataka High Court, which ruled in their favor. This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE RAISED

Was Bangalore University required to adhere to 2001 rules as stipulated in its advertisement for the purpose of the selection process?

Did respondent have a legitimate claim to appointment in accordance with the provision of 2001 rules?

or did it have the authority to deviate from those rules by exercising its autonomy under the Universities Act, 2000?

AGRUMENT OF APPELLANT

1. The appellant contended that the Universities Act of 2000 grants universities autonomy in making appointments, overriding the 2001 rules.
2. The appellant claimed that the reference to 2001 rules in the university’s advertisement was a mistake.
3. He also submitted that Section 78 of the Universities Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of this law over other laws.
4. Mr, Shailesh Madiyal argued that universities operate under the Universities Act and the statutes framed under it rather than the 2001 rules, which were established under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. According to it, the university, being an autonomous institution, cannot be subjected to or governed by rules intended for the regulation of state civil services. 

ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. The respondent argued that the university is obligated to adhere to both its advertised commitments and the provisions outlined in the 2001 Rules, and the Universities Act requires the government to define the method and process of selection through a notification. 
2. Emphasized the 2004 amendment to the Reservation Act, 1990, which 2. introduced Section 4(1A), thereby applying the 2001 Rules to universities.
3. Cited several government communications that mandate universities to implement the 2001 Rules

PRINCIPAL APPLIED

The case revolves around the principles of statutory interpretation and the doctrine of overriding provisions. 

The key legal provisions applied are:

1. Doctrine of supremacy of statutes: 

We have talked about Section 78 of the Universities Act, which grants it overriding authority over other conflicting laws, including the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. This ensures the governance of universities according to the Universities Act, free from the influence of general service regulations.

2. Legislative requirement:

Universities should the government the method of selection. This promotes the importance of following the rules or notifications issued under this section to meet the law’s intent.

3. Binding nature of advertisements:

This principle underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in public recruitment.

4. University autonomy:

As independent institutions, universities are governed by their specific acts and statutes. This principle supports the notion that the 2001 rules, created under a separate statute (the Civil Services Act), do not apply to autonomous universities. 

JUDGEMENT

The university was required to comply with the 2001 Rules as outlined in its advertisement, and mode of selection shall be as per the 2001 Rules.
The introduction of Section 4(1A) to the Reservation Act, 1990, in 2004, clearly extended the application of the 2001 Rules to universities.
Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure rendered the appointment unlawful.

The court took note of the appellant’s extended tenure due to delays in procedure and recommended the establishment of a supernumerary position to accommodate her, as the unfortunate outcome is not due to any fault of the appellant but stems from the university’s lackadaisical handling of the matter, and respondent number 7 should direct to be appointed.

Universities must adhere strictly to the rules stated in their advertisements.
Government instructions, issued under statutory provisions, are obligatory for universities to follow.

ANALYSIS

The advertisement specified that qualifications for the post would follow the UGC Regulations, 2010, and the 2001 Rules, with the selection list based on the 2001 Rules. These rules give preferential treatment to candidates aged 29–40 years from the Scheduled Tribe category. Although the appellant had higher merit, respondent No. 7, who was within the preferential age group, was entitled to the position under the 2001 Rules. However, the university appointed the appellant based on merit, leading respondent No. 7 to challenge the decision in court.

The High Court ruled that the university’s appointment process violated the 2001 Rules, directing respondent No. 7 to be appointed instead. Both parties appealed, but the Division Bench upheld the decision, reinforcing the application of the 2001 Rules.

The case involves interpreting the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, the Reservation Act, and the Universities Act. The amendment to the Reservation Act in 2004 clarified that the 2001 Rules apply to universities, mandating the filling of unfilled reserved vacancies. However, no government notification was issued to specify the procedures for implementing this, though the university complied with the 2001 Rules in its advertisement.

CONCLUSION

The judgment highlights the primacy of the terms outlined in advertisements and the impact of legislative changes on governance. While universities enjoy autonomy under the Universities Act, 2000, this autonomy is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with applicable laws and rules. It strikes a balance between safeguarding the rights of both parties and stressing the importance of following proper procedures while ensuring fairness. 

REFERENCES

1. https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/pdf_viewer?dir=YWRtaW4vanVkZ2VtZW50X2ZpbGUvanVkZ2VtZW50X3BkZi8yMDI0L3

ZvbHVtZSA2L1BhcnQgSUkvMjAyNF82XzQ3MS00ODNfMTcxOTQ3MTE4NC5wZGY=

2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7684261/

3.  https://lawfoyer.in/chaitra-nagammanavar-vs-state-of-karnataka-

ors/#:~:text=The%20core%20issue%20was%20the,autonomy%20to%20follow%20its%20procedures.

4. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/663405f405f21143ce043f89

This case study is written by Vanshita Pandav, a student of Indore International College (affiliated with DAVV) and intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.