Karnataka High Court
Dr D Nagraju M S/O Manchaiah vs Shri Venu S A S/O Anjinanurthy on 6 March, 2024
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
WA No. 100522 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100589 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.100522 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.100589 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN W. A. NO.100522 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
SRI. VINAYAK A. PALANAKAR
AGED 45 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O DHARWAD , DIST. DHARWAD.
2. VICE-CHANCELLOR /CHAIRMAN OF
SELECTION COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DHARWAD,
DHARWAD - 580 005.
... APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. VENU S.A.
S/O ANJINAMURTHY
AGED 34 YEARS
R/O NO.201, GURUKRUPA RESIDENCY,
2ND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE,
BENGALURU -01.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
WA No. 100522 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100589 of 2023
3. DR. D. NAGRAJU M
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O MANCHAIAH
NEW EXTENSION,
CHIKKAMALPURA POST,
HANUR,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 440
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THARANATH POOJARY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH Y. SHIRUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. J.M. GANGADHAR, AAG FOR R2;
SRI. SUNIL DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
W.P.NO.104330/2023 (S-RES) ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 16-8-2023 MADE IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
AS THE SAME BEING ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE W.P.NO.104330/2023 (S-RES)
AS DEVOID OF MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN W. A. NO.100589 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. DR. D. NAGRAJU M.
S/O MANCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
NEW EXTENSION,
CHIKKAMALPURA POST
HANUR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. VENU S.A.
S/O ANJINAMURTHY
A/A 34 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
WA No. 100522 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100589 of 2023
R/A.NO.201, GURUKRUP RESIDENCY,
AP ARTMENTS, 2ND FLOOR,
6TH CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES
R/BY ITS REGISTRAR
KRISHNANAGAR,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
3. VICE-CHANCELLOR/CHAIRMAN OF
SELECTION COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCE,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THARANATH POOJARY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH Y. SHIRURU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. J.M. GANGADHAR, AAG FOR R4;
SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE
IN W P NO.104330/2023 DATED 16/08/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISSES THE WRIT PETITION AS DEVOID OF MERITS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS PERTAINING TO DHARWAD BENCH
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
21.12.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU
THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
WA No. 100522 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100589 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Writ Appeal No.100522/2023 filed by University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (for brevity 'U.A.S.'),
calling in question the correctness of the order passed in
Writ Petition No.104330/2023, and W.A. No. 100589/2023
filed by Dr. D. Nagaraj, whose selection has been set aside
by virtue of the impugned order, are taken up together
and disposed off by a common judgment, as the order of
learned Single Judge impugned in both the Writ petitions
is the same.
2. The parties are referred to by their rank before
the learned Single Judge for the purpose of convenience.
3. The petitioner had called in question the
correctness of the Notification dated 12.07.2023, whereby,
the respondent University (U.A.S.) had announced the
selection list of backlog posts of Teachers declaring the
respondent No.4 as selected for the post of Assistant
Professor of Food Engineering under the 'backlog reserved
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
category of Scheduled Caste'. The petitioner had also
sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the
respondent University to consider selection for the post of
Assistant Professor in terms of the Notification dated
03.03.2023 in accordance with the Score Card Method in
terms of the Notification dated 13.12.2007 of U.A.S.,
Dharwad.
4. The U.A.S., by Notification dated 03.03.2023
had sought to recruit Teaching Staff under the backlog
vacancy in U.A.S., Dharwad and the selection for the post
of Assistant Professor under the category of Scheduled
Caste was a subject matter of dispute before the learned
Single Judge.
5. Admittedly, the Notification of U.A.S. dated
03.03.2023 specified that, "The procedure for selection of
candidates for the backlog posts shall be in accordance
with the Karnataka State Civil Services (unfilled vacancies
reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules,
2001, notified by Government of Karnataka vide No.DPAR
13 SBC 2001, dated 21.11.2001 and 01.06.2002.."
6. The qualification was prescribed and instruction
by way of Guidelines were stipulated which provided for
the procedure of selection to be in accordance with the
Karnataka State Civil Services (unfilled vacancies reserved
for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001, [for
brevity, 'Special Recruitment Rules, 2001'] (Instruction
No.5), while the qualification prescribed for the post of
Teacher was in accordance with U.A.S. Notification dated
13.03.2013 (Instruction No.6).
7. The selection process took note of the marks in
the qualifying examination, which was the relevant criteria
in terms of Special Recruitment Rules, 2001 and
accordingly, declared respondent No.4 as successful
candidate.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
8. The petitioner has challenged the said selection
on the primary ground that the Score Card Method of
Evaluation as prescribed by the University Grants
Commission Regulation, 2018, ('for brevity, UGC
Regulations), which regulations were specifically adopted
by U.A.S. had not been adhered to.
9. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned
order dated 16.08.2023 had set aside the selection
process and re-directed the U.A.S. to redo the selection
process taking note of the observations made in the
course of the order.
Further, the learned Single Judge referred to
Instruction No.6 of the Instructions in the selection
Notification dated 03.03.2023 which provided that the
qualification prescribed for the post in question was in
accordance with U.A.S. Notification dated 13.03.2013,
which in turn had referred to the adopting of UGC/ICAR
Regulations relating to the recruitment of Teachers. By
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
relying on the said Notification adopting the UGC
Regulations, the learned Single Judge has referred to
Annexure-I of the Notification, which provides minimum
qualification for appointment. The learned Single Judge
has held that the selection process ought to be by
following the Score Card Method of evaluation.
10. The learned Single Judge has also referred to
the format in the application form which contemplates
selection by following the Score Card Method. It was
specifically held that selection by Special Recruitment
Rules, 2001 relying solely on merit in the qualifying
examination was impermissible and the Guidelines of UGC
cannot be bypassed and accordingly, it has been held, that
the evaluation process was faulty.
11. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner
was estopped from challenging the selection procedure
after having participated in the selection process, the
Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Dr.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
(Major) Meeta Sahai v. Sate of Bihar1 [Meeta Sahai],
to observe that the candidate by agreeing to participate in
the selection process only accepts the prescribed
procedure and not the illegality in it. It was held that the
illegality in not following the UGC Guidelines could not be
waived.
12. To avoid repetition and for the purpose of
brevity, the contentions of parties are referred to and dealt
with in the analysis and the reasoning portion of the order.
13. The notification of recruitment dated
03.03.2023 provides that the selection of candidates for
backlog posts shall be in accordance with the Special
Recruitment Rules, 2001. The Special Recruitment Rules,
2001 provides for mode of recruitment under 5(1) which
reads as follows:-
"5.Mode of Recruitment.-(1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in the Karnataka
Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 or
the Rules of Recruitment specially made for
(2019) 20 SCC 17
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
recruitment to any service or post, recruitment
under these Rules shall be made by the selecting
authority."
14. The selection procedure is provided under Rule
6(1) of Special Recruitment Rules, 2001, which reads as
follows:-
"6. List of Selected Candidates:- (1) The
Selecting Authority shall, from among the
candidates who have applied in pursuance to the
publication inviting applications under rule 5 and
who have attained the age of 29 years but not
attained the age of 40 years, prepare a list of
Candidates for each category of posts in the order
of merit on the basis of percentage of total marks
secured in the qualifying examination and taking
into consideration the reservation for women, ex-
servicemen, physically handicapped and project
displaced persons in accordance with the
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1977 and the rural candidates in
accordance with the Karnataka Reservation of
Appointments or posts (in the Civil Services of the
State for Rural Candidates) Act, 2000...."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
15. In terms of Rule 1(3) of Special Recruitment
Rules, 2001, it is clear that the recruitment insofar as
unfilled vacancies, shall be only in terms of the Special
Rules notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in the Rules of Recruitment made under the Karnataka
State Civil Services Act, 19772. In terms of Rule 2(d), the
unfilled vacancies refers to the backlog vacancies that are
not filled up by persons belonging to Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
16. It is accordingly clear that in terms of U.A.S.
Notification dated 03.03.2023, recruitment was to be in
terms of Special Recruitment Rules, 2001, which provides
for process of recruitment and procedure for selection in
terms of filling up of backlog vacancy of Reserved
Categories which was required to be followed
notwithstanding any inconsistency with General Rules of
Recruitment under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act,
Rule 1(3).- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the rules of recruitment
specially made in respect of any service or post or any other rules made or deemed to have been
made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act, 14 of 1990), the
provisions of these rules shall apply for the purpose of filling up the unfilled vacancies existing
on the date of commencement of these rules.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
1977. In terms of Rule-6, the selection would be in the
order of merit on the basis of percentage of marks scored
in the qualifying examination.
17. The Instructions in U.A.S. recruitment
notification dated 03.03.2023 at Sl.Nos.5 and 6 reads as
follows:-
"5. The procedure for selection of
candidates for the posts shall be in accordance
with the Karnataka Civil Services (unfilled
vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes)
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 notified by GOK
vide No.DPAR 13 SBC 2001, dated 21.11.2001
and 01.06.2002.
6. The qualifications prescribed for the
posts of teachers are in accordance with the
University Notification No.R/Rectt/CAS-2006/B-
13/2013 dated 13.03.2013."
Instruction No.6 also provides only for the
qualifications prescribed in terms of the Notification of
U.A.S. dated 13.03.2013, while Instruction No.5
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
provides for procedure for selection in accordance with
the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001. The Instruction
No.6 cannot overrule the stipulation in the main
Notification which provides for procedure for selection
being in terms of the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001.
18. Accordingly, in terms of Instruction No.5,
when the procedure for selection would be in accordance
with the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001, the
qualifications are required to be in accordance with the
U.A.S. Notification dated 13.03.2013.
19. The Notification of U.A.S. dated 13.03.2013
provides for adopting of regulations of UGC insofar as
recruitment and promotion of teachers by the U.A.S.
and in terms of Annexure-I of the said Notification,
there is a reference to Regulations governing
recruitment and promotion of teachers, librarians and
equivalent cadres in the University which specifically
refers to the UGC Regulations dated 30.06.2010 and
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
gazetted on 18.09.20103. The UAS has adopted UGC
Regulations of 2010 and the Recruitment Notification
dated 03.03.2023 follows the qualifications as per UGC
Regulations 2010. The qualification for the purpose of
direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor as
provided by UGC Regulations 2010 adopted by the
U.A.S. compared with the recruitment notification dated
03.03.2023, reads as follows:-
Notification
Qualifications as per UGC No.R/Rectt/Advt.61/2023
Regulations 2010 dated 03.03.2023
(U.A.S. Recruitment
Notification)
4. Direct Recruitment Qualifications
Teaching Post:-
4.4.0 - Assistant Professor 3. Assistant Professor
Cadre:-
i. Good academic record as i. Good academic record with
defined by the concerned University atleast 55% or its equivalent
with atleast 55% marks (or an at Masters Degree level in a
equivalent Grade in a point scale relevant subject from a
wherever grading system is recognised University.
followed) at the Master's Degree
level in a relevant subject from an
UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in
the Higher Education, 2010.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
Indian University, or an equivalent
Degree from an accredited Foreign
University.
ii. Besides fulfilling the above ii. Besides fulfilling the above
qualifications, the candidate must qualifications, the candidate
have cleared the National Eligibility must have cleared the
Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, National Eligibility Test (NET)
CSIR or similar Test accredited by conducted by the UGC, CSIR,
the UGC like SLET/SET. ICAR or similar Test
accredited by the UGC like
SLET/SET.]
iii. Notwithstanding anything iii. NET is compulsory along
contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) with one publication in NAAS
to this clause 4.4.1, candidates, (National Academy of
who are, or have been awarded Agricultural Sciences, New
Ph.D. Degree in accordance with Delhi) rated refereed journal
the University Grants Commission for recruitment to the post of
(Minimum Standards and Procedure Assistant Professor and
for award of Ph.D. Degree) equivalent in the disciplines in
Regulations, 2009, shall be which NET is conducted.
exempted from the recruitment of Essentiality of NET can be
the minimum eligibility condition of waived-off for the candidates
NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and holding Ph.D. degree
appointment of Assistant Professor provided it has been done
or equivalent positions in with course work as
Universities/Colleges/Institutions. prescribed by the UGC
Regulations 2009, and the
candidate has at least two full
length papers in journals
having a NAAS rating not less
than 4 / a minimum of 4 full
length papers in NAAS rated
SAU journals, on the last date
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
of submission of application.
Those candidates with Ph.D.
degree without course work
will not qualify for NET
exemption.
iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be iv. NET/SLET/SET shall not
required for such Masters be required for such Masters
Programmes in disciplines for which Programmes in disciplines for
NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. which NET/SLET/SET is not
conducted.
20. Accordingly, in the UGC Regulations 2010,
which is adopted by the U.A.S. vide Notification dated
13.03.2013, the minimum qualifications does not
prescribe Score Card Method. In fact, upon perusal of
UGC Regulations 2010 itself would indicate that Score
Card Method is a part of selection procedure and does
not constitute as a qualification. It is to be noticed that
selection procedure at Point 2.3 of Annexure-I of U.A.S.
Notification dated 13.03.2013, whereby, UGC
Regulations are adopted, provides for evaluation by
Score Card Method. Clearly, the qualification provided
under Point 2.1 and selection procedure at Point 2.3 are
distinct. Further, Annexure-I to the U.A.S. Notification
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
dated 13.03.2013, refers to the adoption of the UGC
Regulations for recruitment in general and not in
reference to the filling up of backlog posts.
21. The U.A.S. Recruitment Notification dated
03.03.2023, clearly provides for applicability of Special
Recruitment Rules, 2001 insofar as selection of
candidates for filling up of backlog vacancy, while for the
purpose of qualification, UGC Regulations 2010 are
referred to.
22. From the comparative tables noticed above,
the minimum qualifications prescribed in the UGC
Regulations 2010 have been adhered to in the U.A.S.
Notification dated 03.03.2023. Accordingly, insofar as
selection procedure in terms of the Special Rules,
evaluation would be in terms of qualifying marks
(Rule 6) and qualification would be in terms of UGC
Regulations 2010 which have not been deviated from.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
23. The learned Single Judge has specifically
addressed the point regarding the requirement of
adopting Score Card Method by the U.A.S. for evaluation
and found that UGC Regulations are required to be
adhered to in the selection process as also the Score
Card Method. The Court has referred to the format of
application to conclude that the UGC Regulations having
the Score Card Method of evaluation is a part of the
recruitment process. It was further concluded that
stopping at evaluation by way of qualifying marks would
not be consistent with the spirit of UGC Regulations but
would be contrary to the same.
24. However, the learned Single Judge grossly
erred in not noticing the distinction between qualification
and selection. There is absolutely no doubt that the
qualification is as per UGC Regulations and there is no
relaxation relating to the same, while selection is a
matter solely to be governed by the Special Recruitment
Rules, 2001.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
25. Insofar as the observation of the learned
Single Judge that the application form itself appears to
indicate that the evaluation other than by qualifying
marks is contemplated, it is to be observed that once
selection is stipulated to be in terms of Special
Recruitment Rules, 2001, the information that may have
been gathered on aspects other than qualifying marks is
to be treated as mere information collected with no
further implication and cannot have the consequence of
altering the applicability of the Special Recruitment
Rules, 2001. Once the Notification specifically refers to
selection in terms of Special Recruitment Rules, 2001
and there is no specific mandate in the main body of the
Notification relating to evaluation by Score Card Method,
the information sought for which relates to other than
qualification cannot be made use of to enlarge the scope
of selection beyond what is provided for under the
Special Recruitment Rules, 2001.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
26. The learned Single Judge has also failed to
note that the petitioner not having challenged Special
Recruitment Rules, 2001, cannot by way of an
interpretation seek for overcoming of procedure under
Rule 6 of Special Recruitment Rules, 2001. The learned
Single Judge has not noticed that the present case is
one relating to filling up of posts as regards backlog
vacancies.
27. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner
is not estopped from challenging the illegality in
procedure and that he has only accepted the lawful
aspects of the notifications and is entitled to challenge
illegalities of such notifications, the said aspect requires
consideration.
28. It must be noticed that the notification of UAS
dated 03.03.2023 clearly refers to selection procedure
to be in terms of Special Recruitment Rules, 2001. This
aspect has been reiterated in the Instruction No.5. It is
only the aspect of qualification which as per the U.A.S.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
Notification dated 13.03.2013 refers back to the
applicable UGC Regulations. If that were to be so, once
the minimum qualification as per UGC Regulations has
been adhered to, in the absence of any challenge to the
Special Recruitment Rules, 2001, the petitioner having
participated in the recruitment process as per the
procedure stipulated in the Recruitment Notification of
03.03.2023, cannot turn around after the results are
announced and challenge the very notification. It is not
demonstrated that as regards minimum qualification
stipulated are contrary to the standards stipulated by
UGC Regulations 2010 or provided under law.
29. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court has
authoritatively declared that having participated in a
selection process willingly without any protest, it would not
be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the
selection criteria subsequently4. The Apex Court in
Similar view is taken by the Apex Court in Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar -
(2010) 12 SCC 576; Tajvir Singh Sodhi v State of Jammu and Kashmir - (2023)
SCC OnLine SC 344
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi5 has observed as
follows: -
"17. Those who were desirous of competing for the
post of Physiotherapist, which is a Group 'C' post in
the State of Uttarakhand must have, after reading
the advertisement, become aware of the fact that by
virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 3-8-2010,
the Board has been designated as the recruiting
agency and the selection will be made in accordance
with the provisions of the General Rules. They
appeared in the written test knowing that they will
have to pass the examination enumerated in Para 11
of the advertisement. If they had cleared the test,
the private respondents would not have raised any
objection to the selection procedure or the
methodology adopted by the Board. They made a
grievance only after they found that their names do
not figure in the list of successful candidates. In
other words, they took a chance to be selected in the
test conducted by the Board on the basis of the
advertisement issued in November 2011. This
conduct of the private respondents clearly disentitles
them from seeking relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution. To put it differently, by having appeared
in the written test and taken a chance to be declared
(2013) 11 SCC 309
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
successful, the private respondents will be deemed to
have waived their right to challenge the
advertisement and the procedure of selection.
18. It is settled law that a person who consciously
takes part in the process of selection cannot,
thereafter, turn around and question the method of
selection and its outcome.
20. In G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow [(1976) 3
SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] , this Court held
that the appellant who knew about the composition
of the Selection Committee and took a chance to be
selected cannot, thereafter, question the constitution
of the Committee.
21. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar
Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644] ,
a three-Judge Bench ruled that when the petitioner
appeared in the examination without protest, he was
not entitled to challenge the result of the
examination. The same view was reiterated in Madan
Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC
(L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] in the following
words: (SCC p. 493, para 9)
"9. ... The petitioners also appeared at
the oral interview conducted by the
Members concerned of the Commission who
interviewed the petitioners as well as the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
contesting respondents concerned. Thus the
petitioners took a chance to get themselves
selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to
have emerged successful as a result of their
combined performance both at written test
and oral interview, they have filed this
petition. It is now well settled that if a
candidate takes a calculated chance and
appears at the interview, then, only because
the result of the interview is not palatable to
him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was
unfair or the Selection Committee was not
properly constituted. In Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986
Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644] it has
been clearly laid down by a Bench of three
learned Judges of this Court that when the
petitioner appeared at the examination
without protest and when he found that he
would not succeed in examination he filed a
petition challenging the said examination,
the High Court should not have granted any
relief to such a petitioner."
23. The doctrine of waiver was also invoked
in Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
Commission [(2011) 1 SCC 150 : (2011) 1 SCC
(L&S) 21] and it was held: (SCC p. 156, para 24)
"24. When the list of successful
candidates in the written examination was
published in such notification itself, it was
also made clear that the knowledge of the
candidates with regard to basic knowledge
of computer operation would be tested at
the time of interview for which knowledge of
Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft
Office operation would be essential. In the
call letter also which was sent to the
appellant at the time of calling him for
interview, the aforesaid criteria was
reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no
minimum benchmark or a new procedure
was ever introduced during the midstream
of the selection process. All the candidates
knew the requirements of the selection
process and were also fully aware that they
must possess the basic knowledge of
computer operation meaning thereby
Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft
Office operation. Knowing the said criteria,
the appellant also appeared in the
interview, faced the questions from the
expert of computer application and has
taken a chance and opportunity therein
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
without any protest at any stage and now
cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid
procedure adopted was wrong and without
jurisdiction."
24. In view of the propositions laid down in the
abovenoted judgments, it must be held that by
having taken part in the process of selection with full
knowledge that the recruitment was being made
under the General Rules, the respondents had waived
their right to question the advertisement or the
methodology adopted by the Board for making
selection and the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court committed grave
error by entertaining the grievance made by the
respondents."
30. Having held that there is no relaxation in the
minimum qualification, we find no inconsistency
between the standards prescribed regarding the
minimum qualification in the recruitment notification
with that of UGC Notification. If that were to be so, no
occasion arises to decide as to whether the UGC
Regulations supersede the Special Recruitment Rules,
2001. Accordingly, the question of invoking the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
principle of Meeta Sahai's case (supra) does not
arise.
31. The Division Bench of this Court in
Dr. Phaniraja KL v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal
and Fisheries Science University, disposing of Writ
Appeal No.3035/2019 and connected matters, has
upheld the pre-eminence of Special Recruitment Rules of
2001, vis-à-vis executive order of 09.05.2005 which was
contrary to provisions of Special Recruitment Rules of
2001 while observing that Rule 3 of Special Recruitment
Rules, 2001 has statutory force. This would further
bolster the contention of respondent No.4 that
recruitment of backlog posts relating to SC/ST is
governed by the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001.
32. The question of even entering upon a
discussion as to whether the permission of University
Grants Commission ought to have been sought for
relaxing the minimum standards would not arise in light
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
of the finding that there is no such relaxation in light of
the qualification prescribed in the recruitment
notification.
33. The respondent No.1 to support his contentions
has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Dr.
Preeti Srivastava and Another v. State of M.P. and
Others6, wherein the Apex Court has dealt with the issue
as to whether the State can prescribe a lower minimum
standards in form of reducing qualifying marks for the
reserved category candidates as compared to general
category candidates for admission to Postgraduate
Degree/Diploma Courses in Medicine. However, in the
present case on hand the issue is as regards recruitment
under backlog reserved vacancy, wherein the minimum
standards as prescribed by Central Statute i.e., UGC has
been followed and as observed supra at paras-22 and 24,
only the selection procedure for backlog reserved vacancy
(1999) 7 SCC 120
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
as provided for under the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001
has been followed.
Further, even the judgment in University of Delhi
v. Raj Singh and others7, has no relevance, as the
present case on hand deals with recruitment of backlog
reserved vacancy and in case of filling up of posts to such
backlog reserved vacancy, selection procedure is as per
the Special Recruitment Rules, 2001.
In N.T. Devin Katti and Others v. Karanataka
Public Service Commission and Others8, the Apex
Court has laid down that the selection to a post shall be in
accordance with the existing/prevailing Rules at the time
of advertisement. In the present case, it is not contested
that there has been a deviation from what was prescribed
in the advertisement. The selection procedure is in
accordance with the advertisement wherein, it was
specifically mentioned that selection of candidates shall be
1994 Supp (3) SCC 516
(1990) 3 SCC 157
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4921-DB
in accordance with Special Recruitment Rules, 2001 (see
supra para 25). Also, as observed supra at para-28, no
challenge has been made to the Special Recruitment
Rules, 2001.
34. Accordingly, the order of learned Single Judge
dated 16.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.104330/2023 is set
aside and Writ Appeals are allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VGR
