Karnataka High Court
Dr. Y. S. Sumathy vs State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2025
-1-
WA No. 508 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. Y.S. SUMATHY
WIFE OF SRI A MAHESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.F-442
PLUMERIA LIFE STYLE
BRIGADE MEADOWS
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 082.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SWAMY N.B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by
SUMATHY BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
KANNAN DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Location: M.S. BUILDING
High Court DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
of Karnataka
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
WA No. 508 of 2025
3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
OUTER RING ROAD
MALLATHAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 056.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA R-1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED ON 4TH MARCH, 2025 IN W.P. NO.23131/2024
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE SAME;
CONSEQUENTIALLY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 3 - TO APPROVE THE MERIT CUM ELIGIBLE LIST DATED
11/05/2022 (ANNEXURE-B) WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
LETTER DATED 20/06/2024 (ANNEXURE-D) IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW FORTHWITH AND PASS SUCH FURTHER ORDER
OR ORDERS & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-3-
WA No. 508 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 04.03.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.23131/2024 (S-RES) captioned 'Dr. Y.S.
Sumathy vs. State of Karnataka & Others'.
2. The appellant [Dr. Y.S. Sumathy] had filed the said writ
petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent
Nos.1 to 3 to approve the merit-cum-eligible list dated 11.05.2022.
The appellant's name found place in the said list as an 'Associate
Professor' in the Department of Instrumentation Technology with
Respondent No.4 Institute. The appellant also sought an order
to disregard the letter dated 20.06.2024 [impugned letter] issued
by respondent No.3 [Director of Technical Education, Government
of Karnataka]. The said petition was dismissed in terms of the
impugned order.
3. Respondent No.4 had issued a notification dated 25.02.2020
inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up posts of
Professors and Associate Professors in different disciplines.
Pursuant to the said notification, the appellant had applied for the
post of Associate Professor in the Department of Instrumentation
Technology in the reserved category for Scheduled Caste.
4. The appellant was placed in the top of the list prepared by
respondent No.4. However, the appellant was not appointed to the
post by the Government of Karnataka. Respondent No.3 had
issued the impugned letter calling upon Respondent No.4 to amend
the advertisement, to specifically incorporate the eligibility criteria
regarding the qualification and experience as required for the post
of Professor and Associate Professor, in terms of the ['All India
Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions
and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and
Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and
Training & Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education
- (Degree) Regulations, 2019'] [AICTE Regulations, 2019]. Thus,
the list would be required to be re-worked in terms of the impugned
letter.
5. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the impugned letter
and claims that no changes could be effected in the notification,
since the process for recruitment had already commenced. Thus,
the principal question to be considered is, whether the AICTE
Regulations, 2019 are applicable for appointment to the post of
Professor and Associate Professor pursuant to the notice inviting
applications dated 25.02.2020.
Prefatory facts
6. The appellant claims to be a Ph.D. Doctorate in the discipline
of Biomedical Instrumentation, which was awarded to her in the
year 2019 by Visveswaraiah Technological University [VTU]. She
also has a teaching experience of more than ten years in the
subject of 'Instrumentation Technology' as of March 2020.
7. Respondent No.4 [Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology],
issued a notice dated 25.02.2020, inviting applications from eligible
candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
to fill up backlog vacancies in its College for the posts of Professor
and Associate Professor in different departments of engineering.
The last date for filing applications was fixed as 26.03.2020. The
said notice also expressly stated that the backlog vacancies would
be filled in accordance with the Backlog Rules and submitting of
the application would not confer any right for selection. The said
notice did not mention that the appointment would be in
accordance with the AICTE Regulations.
8. The last date for filing the application was further extended to
29.05.2020. The appellant filed an application for appointment to
the said post. Thereafter, on 11.05.2022, a merit-cum-eligible list
was published by respondent No.4. The appellant had scored 1487
marks out of 2000 marks and was placed on the top of the three
candidates found eligible for appointment to the post of Associate
Professor in the Department of Instrumentation Technology.
9. The said list was sent to respondent No.3 for approval on
07.10.2022. Since the appellant was placed in the top of the list of
eligible candidates, she expected that on approval of the list, she
would be appointed to the post of Associate Professor in the
Department of Instrumentation Technology.
10. However, the said list, was not approved. In view of the
inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the appellant filed a
writ petition being W.P.No.28814/2023 (S-RES), praying that
directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to approve the merit-
cum-eligible list dated 11.05.2022. The said petition was disposed
of by an order dated 06.02.2024, whereby respondent No.3 was
directed to examine the merit-cum-eligible list and pass appropriate
orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the
order.
11. After the said period had elapsed, the appellant filed a
contempt petition being CCC No.667/2024 (Civil), alleging willful
disobedience of the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.28814/2023.
12. Respondent No.3 filed an affidavit of compliance, inter alia
stating that on verifying the advertisement, it was found that the
educational qualification and experience for the cadre of teaching
posts had been fixed in accordance with the AICTE Rules, 2006.
However the AICTE Regulations, 2019 which replaced the 2006
Regulations, were in force at the material time. Therefore,
respondent No.4 was informed to take appropriate action to issue a
corrigendum to the notice dated 25.02.2020, and prepare a merit-
cum-eligible list accordingly. An endorsement dated 23.07.2024
was also issued regarding approval of appointment of the appellant
to the post of Associate Professor. The said endorsement inter alia
stated that corrigendum to the recruitment publication dated
25.02.2020 was underway and as soon as respondent No.4
prepares a merit list for the post of Professors and Associate
Professors, the same would be examined as per rules and
necessary action would be taken.
13. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 also issued a letter dated
20.06.2024 pointing out that the advertisement issued on
25.02.2020 required to be amended and directing respondent No.4
to issue a corrigendum. The said letter is set out below:
"KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
No.DTE/85/EST (14) 2022 Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Technical Education
Palace road, Bengaluru-560001
Dated: 20.06.2024
To,
The Principal,
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology
Bangalore-560001.
Sub:-Regarding filling up of backlogs posts of vacancies through
Direct Recruitment teaching and non teaching staff posts Dr.
Ambedkar Institute of Technology Bengaluru.
Ref: 1. Letter of Director of Technical Education Department in
No. DTE 59 EST(4) A (1) 2018 dated: 30.01.2020.
2. Letter dated 09-09-2022, 08-02-2024 & 18-03-2024 of Principal,
Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology Bengaluru.
With respect to above subject, in reference No. (1) letter of Director,
Technical Education, permission has been accorded for filling up of
teaching/ non teaching backlog posts identified at Dr. Ambedkar institute
of Technology Bengaluru through issue of publication as per rules.
Accordingly, the institution issued publication on 25-02-2020 for
recruitment and invited applications and thereby selected the candidates
and sent the proposal for the approval.
But, in the meantime AICTE implemented 2019 regulations on
1.03.2019, the pay scales, service rules and educational qualifications
for the teaching posts of Engineering colleges have been revised. As per
Sl. No.1.4 (g) of the said regulations, it has been informed regarding the
date of effect of the revised service conditions for the recruitment of the
teaching cadres as shown below.
(g) In cases where advertisement was published, applications invited, but
interviews have not been conducted till publication of this notification, the
institutes/employers are required to publish corrigendum and processing
of applications must be done in accordance with the provisions given in
this notification.
After that, as per the above regulations, the revised A.L.C.T.E pay scales
were implemented vide Government Order no. ED 12 DTE 2019 dated:
24-03-2020, in the said Government order at SL.No.17, it has been
informed that, the educational qualifications and service conditions of the
Teaching faculty should be as per AICTE 2019 regulations.
There is no changes in 2019 AICTE Regulations with regard to
qualification for Assistant Professor. But for Professor and Associate
Professor posts the qualification, Service, Experience and other eligibility
is changed.
Therefore in the advertisement of 25-02-2020 due to change in 2019
AICTE Regulations to the previously notified advertisement needs
amendment and to be published in the same daily newspaper regarding
change in AICTE Regulations with regard to qualification, Service, and
Experience and other eligibilities for the post of Professor and Associate
Professor and accordingly informed to prepare and submit fresh select
list for approval.
Yours Faithfully,
Signed by,
Prasanna H
Director
Department of Technical Education"
14. On becoming aware of the letter dated 20.06.2024, the
appellant sent a letter dated 01.07.2024 contending that publishing
- 10 -
corrigendum to the advertisement was impermissible as the
process of selection was already over. Aggrieved by the letter
dated 20.06.2024, the appellant had filed the writ petition, which
was dismissed by the impugned order.
Submissions
15. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the recruitment
process had commenced by issuance of the notice dated
30.01.2020 and therefore, no changes could be made to the
qualification criteria thereafter. The learned counsel for the
appellant earnestly contended that the rules of recruitment cannot
be changed after the process had begun. He also referred to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v.
Rajasthan High Court & Ors. : 2024 INSC 847, whereby the
Court had reiterated the principle that the eligibility criteria notified
at the commencement of the recruitment process could not be
changed midway, unless the extant rules so permit.
Reasons and Conclusion
16. The controversy is in a narrow compass. The only question
required to be considered is, whether the AICTE Regulations, 2019
[All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service,
- 11 -
Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical
Education and Training & Placement Personnel in Technical
Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Technical Education - (Degree) Regulations, 2019] are applicable
to the recruitment process that was commenced pursuant to
issuance of notice dated 25.02.2020.
17. It is material to note that the Government of Karnataka had,
vide notification dated 21.11.2001, framed the Karnataka State
Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for the Persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes)
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 [hereafter 'Rules of Backlog
Vacancies'].
18. The Rules of Backlog Vacancies set out certain guidelines
for filling backlog vacancies. The said rules, specifically provide as
under:
"Qualification: means the minimum qualification for
recruitment to any service or post prescribed in the rules of
recruitment specially made in respect of the service or post
or in any other rules made or deemed to have been made
under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978."
- 12 -
19. The AICTE pay scales for the teaching faculty of the
Government and Aided Engineering Colleges was introduced in
terms of a Government order dated 01.03.1990 with effect from
01.01.1986. There is no cavil that qualifications and other
conditions for recruitment of teaching faculties in aided engineering
college are governed by the relevant rules framed by the All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
20. Respondent No.3 had accorded permission to respondent
No.4 to initiate recruitment process for filling the backlog vacancies
reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribe categories under the Rules of Backlog Vacancies.
21. Pursuant to the said approval, respondent No.4 had issued a
notice dated 25.02.2020 inviting applications from eligible
candidates. The qualifications for certain posts were stipulated in
accordance with rules framed by the AICTE in the year 2006
(AICTE Rules, 2006). However, prior to the said date, AICTE had
framed AICTE Regulations, 2019 which were notified on
01.03.2019.
- 13 -
22. On 24.03.2020, the Government of Karnataka extended the
Revised Seventh AICTE Pay Scales for teaching faculties of
Government and Aided Engineering Colleges with effect from
01.01.2016, as stipulated in the AICTE Regulations, 2019. The
Government order dated 24.03.2020 inter alia stated as under:
"17. Recruitment and Qualifications:
a) Conditions governing eligibility criteria for direct
recruitment to the post of Teachers and other academic staff
in the degree level Engineering Colleges and degree level
Technical Institutions / University and its constituent colleges
shall be as specified in the "AICTE Pay Scales, Service
Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library,
Physical Education and Training & Placement Personnel in
Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of
Standards in Technical Education (Degree) Regulation,
2019" and amendments if any issued in this regard from time
to time by AICTE read with the provisions of applicable rules
of the State Government like the Karnataka Civil Services
(General recruitment) Rules, 1977 and orders issued
thereunder."
23. Clause (a) of Regulation 1.4 of the AICTE Regulations, 2019,
expressly provides that conditions of service including qualification,
experience, recruitment, promotions, publications, training and
course requirements etc., would come into force with effect from
the date of the Gazette notification. And, the Gazette notification
was issued on 01.03.2019.
- 14 -
24. Clauses (a), (f) and (g) of Regulation 1.4 are set out below:
"a) All other service conditions including
Qualifications, Experience, Recruitment, Promotions
publications, training and course requirements etc. shall
come into force with effect from the date of this Gazette
Notification.
f) In cases, wherein interviews are already conducted
either for direct recruitment or for promotions but candidates
did not join, such candidates may be allowed to join. Their
further up-gradation will be governed by this notification.
g) In cases, where advertisement was published,
applications invited but interviews have not been conducted
till publication of this notification, the institutes / employers
are required to publish corrigendum and processing of
applications must be done in accordance with the provisions
given in this notification."
25. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent No.3 had directed that
a corrigendum be issued to the notice dated 25.02.2020 as the
AICTE Regulations, 2019 were in force and had been adopted by
the Government of Karnataka by virtue of the Government order
dated 24.03.2020. This was prior to the last date for submitting the
applications for appointment to the advertised posts.
26. As noted above, Clause (g) of Regulation 1.4 of the
Regulations, expressly provides that in cases where
advertisements have been published and applications have been
- 15 -
invited but interviews have not been conducted till the publication of
the notification; the employers are required to publish a
corrigendum and applications must be processed in accordance
with the AICTE Regulations, 2019.
27. Although no interviews were required to be conducted in the
present case, the Government order dated 24.03.2020 adopting
the AICTE Regulations had been issued prior to the last date of
furnishing of the applications. Thus, no appointments could be
made in disregard of the AICTE Regulations, 2019.
28. The reliance placed by the appellant on the case of Tej
Prakash & Ors. (supra), is misplaced. It is relevant to note that the
said decision reiterated the view in K. Manjusree vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another : 2008 (3) SCC 512.
29. In K. Manjusree (supra), the Supreme Court had held that
after the selection process had commenced, the rules for selection
could not be changed. In that case, the recruitment exercise was
conducted for selection and appointment to the post of District and
Sessions Judge. The rules in force prescribed for the eligibility
qualifications and the procedure of selection. The said procedure
was decided by the High Court as and when the vacancies were
- 16 -
notified. The administrative Committee of the High Court had
decided to conduct written examination with the maximum of 75
marks and viva-voce for 25 marks. The resolution also specified
the minimum qualifying marks for various categories of candidates.
The written examination was held and the results were declared.
The candidates were awarded marks out of maximum of 100
marks. Thereafter, interviews were held and the candidates were
awarded marks on the basis that a maximum of 25 marks could be
awarded. The consolidated merit list was prepared on the basis of
maximum of 125 marks: 100 for written examination and 25 for the
interview. However, the merit list was not accepted by the Full
Court. The Court recommended that the evaluation be conducted
with reference to 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks
for the interview as resolved earlier instead of 100 marks for written
examination and 25 marks for viva-voce as adopted for drawing up
the merit list. Additionally, the Court resolved that minimum
threshold of qualifying marks be provided for interview. Thus,
those candidates who had failed to secure the minimum marks in
the interview, would be considered as failed.
30. The merit list was redrawn and two candidates who were
earlier part of merit list, were excluded. They filed a writ petition
- 17 -
impugning the High Court's decision to prepare a selection list by
prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The writ
petitions were dismissed. The writ petitioners (the candidates
whose names were excluded) filed Special Leave Petition before
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in
scaling down the marks of written examination from 100 to 75, as
that was in conformity with the initial resolution. However, the
Supreme Court rejected the decision to fix the criteria of minimum
marks for the interview, as the same was not stipulated when the
selection process had commenced. The Court held that once the
process has commenced, the basis for selection could not be
altered. The Supreme Court summarized its conclusions as under:
"42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the
following terms:
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of
the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling
up of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process
unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement,
which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if
- 18 -
such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the
advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the
test of non-arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law
and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals
with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K.
Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the
Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether
different issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may
devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment
process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted
is transparent, non-discriminatory/ non-arbitrary and has a
rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to
appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide
reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if
vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of
consideration in the select list."
31. The decision in Tej Prakash was rendered in the context of
the selection process being altered midway by administrative
- 19 -
decisions. The Supreme Court had concluded that the eligibility
criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the
commencement of the recruitment process could not be changed.
However, the Court also noted the exception that such change was
permissible if the extant Rules so permitted it. The principle that
recruitment process cannot be altered once it has begun rests on
the premise that the same is in conformity with the extant rules. A
recruitment process, which is contrary to the statutory rules cannot
be followed solely on the ground that the recruitment process has
commenced.
32. In the present case, the AICTE Regulations, 2019 were
framed in exercise of statutory powers under the All India Council
for Technical Education Act, 1987. The said rules also expressly
provided a cut-off for implementing the eligibility qualifications. It
was specified that in case where interviews are held, the
candidates may be allowed to join. However, in cases where
applications are invited and interviews have not been conducted,
the institutes / employers are required to publish a corrigendum
and process the applications accordingly.
- 20 -
33. The AICTE Regulations, 2019 were notified much prior to the
notice dated 25.02.2020 and were adopted by the Government of
Karnataka prior to the last date for filing the applications.
34. It is also material to note that the notice dated 25.02.2020 did
not stipulate any eligibility qualification. Indisputably, the AICTE
Regulations, 2019 which were in force were required to be adhered
to. The said regulations expressly contain provisions for carving out
exceptions in cases where the interviews had already been
conducted. Thus, this is not a case where rules of process of
recruitment was altered by administrative orders after the
recruitment had begun.
35. In the present case, the qualification criteria has been
prescribed under a subordinate legislation. There is no challenge to
the constitutional validity of the AICTE Regulations, 2019. In the
given circumstances, clearly no appointment can be made contrary
to the AICTE Regulations, 2019 which were in force at the material
time.
36. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the impugned
letter directing that a corrigendum be carried out to expressly
provide that the AICTE Regulations, 2019 are applicable.
- 21 -
37. We find no fault with the impugned order. Accordingly, the
present appeal is dismissed.
38. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KS
