Holding

The insertion of sub‑section (1A) to Section 4 of the Karnataka Reservation Act, 1990 extends the 2001 Rules to university appointments, making the university bound to follow the advertised mode of selection.

Summary

The Bangalore University advertised a vacancy for an Assistant Professor (English) reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, stating that the selection would be made in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. The appellant, Chaitra Nagammanavar, was appointed on the basis of merit, whereas respondent No. 7, also an ST candidate, fell within the preferred age bracket of 29‑40 years under Rule 6 of those Rules. Respondent No. 7 challenged the appointment, and the High Court set aside the appellant’s selection, directing that the university appoint respondent No. 7. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the 2001 Rules were applicable to university appointments after the insertion of sub‑section (1A) to Section 4 of the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation) Act, 1990. The Court held that the amendment unequivocally extended the 2001 Rules to universities, making the university bound to follow the mode of selection declared in its advertisement. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming respondent No. 7’s entitlement, while suggesting the university could create a super‑numerary post for the appellant to mitigate hardship. The decision underscores that universities must comply with statutory reservation procedures as specified in their advertisements.

Issues considered

Whether the Bangalore University was bound to comply with the 2001 Rules as the mode of selection as declared in its advertisement.
Whether respondent No. 7, a preferential candidate under Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, is entitled to appointment over the higher‑merit appellant.
Whether the advertisement invoking the 2001 Rules was illegal or invalid in view of the applicable statutes.

Legislation cited

Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990s. 2(2), s. 2(3)(vi), s. 4(1A)
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978
Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001s. Rule 6
Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000s. 53, s. 54, s. 78
UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016
UGC Regulations, 2010

Subjects

backlog vacanciesselectionappointmentadvertisement issued by universityassistant professormode of selectionappointments of teachers by universitiesuniversity bound to comply with advertisement

Judgment

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 471 : 2024 INSC 367

Chaitra Nagammanavar
v.
State of Karnataka & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6772-6773 of 2023)
02 May 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
For the selection in question, whether the Bangalore University was
bound to comply with the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/
method of selection as per its advertisement; whether respondent
No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules; whether
the aforesaid advertisement issued by the University intending
to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Karnataka State Civil
Services Act, 1978 suffered from any illegality.

Headnotes†
Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments
etc.) Act, 1990 – ss.4(1A), 2(2), 2(3)(vi) – Karnataka State
Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons
Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules,
2001 – Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – ss.53, 54, 78 –
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 – Filling up of backlog
vacancies of SCs and STs as per the advertisement issued by
the Bangalore University – Applicability of the 2001 Rules to
appointments by the University governed by the Universities
Act, 2000 – Appellant and respondent No.7, both ST candidates
were eligible for appointment to the solitary post of Assistant
Professor (English) reserved for a candidate belonging to the
STs – While the appellant was higher in merit, respondent no.7
was within the age bracket of 29-40 years, and thus, a preferential
candidate under the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/
method of Selection as per the advertisement – However, the
university following its own procedure appointed the appellant
on the basis of merit – High Court held that respondent No.7 is
entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules – Correctness:
Held: The controversy about filling up backlog vacancies of SCs
and STs by the university came to an end with the insertion of
Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990 – In fact, the provocation
* Author
472 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

for introducing sub-Section (1A) was that the mandate of the 2001
Rules was not followed by the universities – In order to extend
the provision of the 2001 Rules to universities, sub-Section (1A)
was introduced – Thus, there was no uncertainty left after the
introduction of sub-Section (1A) to Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act,
1990, requiring an establishment, i.e., the university, to take action
for filling the backlog vacancies as a one-time measure by following
the method prescribed by the Government – The purpose and object
of the amendment was amply clear from its statements of objects
and reasons contemplating the application of the 2001 Rules for
the universities – The conduct of the university in not responding
to the categorical demands of the Government to implement the
2001 Rules is conclusive about its acceptance of the applicable
law and the policy, and therefore, the advertisement – Hence, the
requirement of the Government to specify the manner, procedure
and time for identifying, filling backlog vacancies and completing
the same was amply clear to the university – It is with this view
that the university advertised that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall
be as per the 2001 Rules – Compliance with the 2001 Rules
was mandatory – University was bound to comply with what
was declared in its advertisement – The 2001 Rules will be the
guiding principles for the selection in question – High Court rightly
held that respondent No. 7 is entitled to be appointed as per the
2001 Rules – Appeals against impugned judgment dismissed –
However, the appellant has been working for almost four and a
half years – University may consider creating a supernumerary
post to accommodate her. [Paras 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23]

Case Law Cited
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [2008] 15 SCR 331 :
(2008) 10 SCC 1; N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public
Service Commission [1990] 2 SCR 239 : (1990) 3 SCC
157 – referred to.

List of Acts
Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments
etc.) Act, 1990; Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies
Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special
Recruitment) Rules, 2001; Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000;
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978; UGC Regulations, 2010;
UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 473

Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

List of Keywords
Backlog vacancies; Selection; Appointment; Advertisement issued
by University; Appointment to solitary post; Assistant Professor;
Mode/method of Selection as per the advertisement; Appointments
of teachers by Universities; University bound to comply with the
advertisement.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6772-6773 of
2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2021 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA Nos. 233 and 190 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Advs., Vaibhav Sabharwal, Ms. Divija Mahajan,
Ms. Sunidhi Hegde, Mrigank Prabhakar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Gagan Gupta, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Advs., Rahmathulla
Kothwal, Siddika Aisha, Ms. Sara Parveen, Ms. Manju Jetley, D.
L. Chidananda, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Ishan Roy Chaudhary,
Shubhranshu Padhi, Suraj Kaushik, Shiva Swaroop, Agam Sharma,
M/s. Nuli & Nuli, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. 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. The facts, to the extent they are relevant for our consideration, are
that the Banglore University, constituted under the Karnataka State
Universities Act, 2000,1 issued an advertisement dated 21.03.2018

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Universities Act’.
474 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

for filling up backlog vacancies to posts reserved for scheduled
castes (SC’s) and scheduled tribes (ST’s). Of the 34 posts advertised
for Assistant Professors, one post of Assistant Professor in the
department of English was reserved for a candidate belonging to
the ST community.
3. The advertisement provides that qualifications for the post shall
be as provided under the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC
(4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016. The ‘Mode of Selection’, or
the method of selection, as specified in the advertisement, is
important.2 It is provided that the list of selected candidates will
be prepared as per the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled
Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s)
(Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001, hereinafter referred to as the
‘2001 Rules’. Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules provides for a preference
in favour of candidates between the age bracket of 29 and 40
years. In other words, amongst the eligible candidates belonging
to a scheduled tribe, those who fall within the age bracket of 29-
40 years, would have a preferential right to be appointed over and
above even meritorious candidates.
4. The appellant and respondent No. 7 are both ST candidates, and
both of them were eligible for appointment to the solitary post
of Assistant Professor in the English department reserved for a
candidate beloniging to the ST community. While the appellant
was higher in merit, respondent no. 7 was within the age bracket
of 29-40 years, and as such, was a preferential candidate as per
Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules. Though the university advertised that the
‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules, it followed its
own procedure and proceeded to appoint the appellant on the basis
of merit. Respondent no. 7 naturally challenged the appointment of
the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 4923/2020 before the High
Court of Karnataka.
5. The Ld. Single Judge of the High Court, by a judgment dated
16.01.2021, allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellant’s

2 “MODE OF SELECTION
The list of selected candidates will be prepared as per the following Government of Karnataka
Notifications:
1. No. DPAR 13 SBC 2001 dated: 21.11.2001 & Dated: 01.06.2002
2. UGC Regulations 2010, UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations, 2016 and AICTE 2016 Regulations.”
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 475

Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

selection and appointment on the ground that the university specifically
declared in the advertisement that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be
as per the 2001 Rules. Therefore, its appointment of the appellant,
who did not fall in the age bracket of 29-40 years, was illegal.
Consequently, Respondent No. 7, who is the preferential candidate,
was directed to be appointed.
6. The appellant and the university filed their respective writ appeals,
namely W.A. 190/2021 and 233/2021, before the Division Bench of
the High Court. While confirming the order of the Single Judge, the
Division Bench also directed that respondent No. 7 is entitled to be
appointed as per the 2001 Rules. Thus, the present Civil Appeal by
the appellant, who was the originally appointed candidate.
7. Before we consider the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to
three legislations that have a bearing on the case. The Karnataka
State Civil Services Act, 19783; the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs
(Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 19904; and the Karnataka
State Universities Act, 20005. Very importantly, we will also consider
the applicability of the 2001 Rules framed under the Civil Services
Act, 1978.
8. The relevant law governing the filling up of backlog vacancies as per
the advertisement issued by the university will be the Reservation
Act, 1990 and the 2001 Rules. These rules are made under the Civil
Services Act, which naturally relates to civil services under the State
of Karnataka. The applicability of the 2001 Rules to appointments
by the universities, which is governed by the University Act, is the
controversy that has led to the present litigation.
9. The Bangalore University is governed by the Karnataka Universities
Act, 2000. Sec. 536 of this law recognises a ‘Board of Appointment’
to be the appointing authority for teachers and other employees of
the university. Sec. 547 provides that notwhithstanding anything in

3 Hereinafter referred to as the Civil Services Act, 1978.
4 Hereinafter referred to as the Reservation Act, 1990
5 Hereinafter referred to as the Universities Act, 2000.
6 “Sec. 53. Appointment of Teachers, Librarians.- (1) There shall be a Board of Appointment for
selection of persons for appointment as teachers and librarians in the University […]”
7 “Sec. 54. Appointment in accordance with the promotion schemes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in section 53 but subject to the rules and orders of the State Government issued from time
to time for reservation of appointment and posts for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
476 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Sec. 53, but subject to the rules and orders of the State Government,
appointments to the posts of professors, readers, principals and
asst. professors shall be made by the syndicate as per the scheme
evolved by the UGC. Furthermore, under Sec. 78, the Universities
Act is given an overriding effect to it over other statutes.
10. Apart from the Universities Act, there is an overarching law, namely,
the Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointment etc.)
Act, 1990. It is intended to provide reservations in favour of SCs,
STs and other OBCs in the state civil services and ‘establishments’.
The definitions of ‘establishment’ and ‘appointing authority’ under the
Reservation Act, 1990 are relevant. Sec. 2(2) and 2(3)(vi) defines
‘appointing authority’ and ‘establishments in public sector’ as follows:
“Section 2. Definitions: In the Act, unless the context
otherwise requires […]
(2) “appointing authority” in relation to a service or posts,
means the authority empowered to make appointment to
such service or post;
(3) “establishments in public sector” means,- […]
(vi) a University established or deemed to have been
established by or under any law of the State Legislature
[…]”.
10.1 The most relevant provision in the Reservation Act, 1990 is Sec.
4 and it is extracted hereinafter for ready reference:-
“ Sec. 4. Reservation of appointments or posts
etc:- (1) After the appointed day, while making
appointments to any office in a civil service of the
State of Karnataka or to a civil post under the State
of Karnataka, appointments or posts shall be reserved
for the member of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and other Backward Classes to such extent
and in such manner as may be specified from time

Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution, the appointment to the post of
Professors and Readers, Principals and Assistant Professors in the constituent Engineering Colleges
and to the post of Principal Grade-I, Principal Grade-II, Lecturer (Selection Grade), Lecturer (Senior
Scale) in the constituent Engineering Colleges shall be made by the Syndicate in accordance with the
scheme governing promotions as prescribed by the Statutes adopting the schemes evolved by the
University Grants Commission or All India Council for Technical Education.[…]”
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 477

Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

to time in the order made by the Government under
clause 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
10.2 There was uncertainty about the applicability of the procedure
contemplated under Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act, 1990 for the
appointments of teachers by the universities, as Section 4 speaks
about appointments in the civil service of the state and civil
posts under the State of Karnataka. A common understanding
was that an office in the civil service of the state or a civil post
under the state did not include ‘teachers’ as contemplated under
S. 53 of the Universities Act. This uncertainty was greater with
respect to filling up of backlog vacancies in the university by
following the procedure provided in the 2001 Rules.
10.3 It is under these circumstances that an amendment was
proposed to the Reservation Act, 1990. The statements of
objects and reasons (‘SOR’) for the introduction of sub-section
(1A) to Sec. 4 clarifies the position and helps us understand
the newly introduced sub-Section (1A) in its proper perspective.
“Amending Act 8 of 2004.- Government issued a
Notification dated: 21.11.2001 under the Karnataka
Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies reserved for
the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Special Recruitment) Rules,
2001 for filling up of vacancies reserved for persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. This Special Recruitment Rules was published
under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the
Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14
of 1990) in Notification No. DPAR 13 SBC 2001, dated
6th August 2001. The Notification was issued to fill
all unfilled vacancies by all the appointing authorities
wherever the service conditions are governed by
the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978. The Cabinet
appointed a sub-committee of the Cabinet to monitor
and review the progress. The Social Welfare
Department was made the nodal Department. As on
date the Social Welfare Department has identified
17021 numbers of vacancies out of them, 14485 have
478 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

already been notified, of which 11573 vacancies are
filled up and the balance is in the process of being
filled. During the course of the review meeting it was
pointed out to the Cabinet Sub Committee that the
Karnataka Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies reserved
for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Special Recruitment) Rules,
2001 does not apply to the Universities, including
Agriculture Universities and other institutions, etc.,
because they do not come under the purview of the
said Rules. The non-inclusion of these institutions
under the purview of the Notification dated 21.11.2001
and 1.6.2002 meant that the filling up of the backlog
vacancies by the Universities and other institutions
could suffer from a legal infirmity.
In view of the fact that the process of recruitment
by these institutions i.e., Universities etc. 80% of
the recruitment are already over, both for teaching
and non-teaching staff and the persons recruited
have already reported and are working, there is an
immediate need to amend the Act to legally enforce
the recruitment’s already made.[…]”
10.4 It is clear from the SOR that the Cabinet Sub-Committee realised
that the 2001 Rules were not made applicable to Universities as
they do not come with the purview of the 2001 Rules. It is for
this reason that the Reservation Act, 1990 is amended and the
following sub-Section (1A) was introduced. The newly included
sub-section (1A) to Sec. 4 of the Act is as follows:
“Sec. 4: Reservation of appointments or posts
etc:-
1. […]
(1A). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, the appointing authority shall
identify unfilled vacancies reserved for the persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in any service or post in an establishment in public
sector as existing on the date of commencement of
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 479

Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

the Second Amendment Act, 2004 and take action
to fill them as a one time measure within a specified
time. The manner in which the number of vacancies
is to be computed, the procedure for filling such
vacancies and the time within which action is to be
taken shall be as specified by notification by the
State Government.
Provided that the provisions of sub-section shall not
apply to any unfilled vacancy in Karnataka State Civil
Services or Post in respect of which provisions have
been already made […]”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The above-referred amendment to Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act,
1990 had the effect of bringing universities established by the state,
within the mandate of sub-section (1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990.
A combined reading of Sec. 2(2), 2(3)(vi) and sub-sections (1) and
(1A) of Sec. 4 of the Reservation Act, 1990 with Sec. 53 and 54 of the
Universities Act, 2000 would establish that the Board of Appointment
of the university is tasked with identifying the unfilled vacancies
reserved for SCs and STs existing as on the amendment dated
2004 and to fill them up as a one-time measure within a specified
time. Till here there is no difficulty. In fact, this is in the natural flow
of the two statutes.
12. The difficulty, however, arises out of the latter part of sub-Section
(1A) which provides that the manner, procedure and the time for
identifying, filling and completing the same ‘shall be as specified by
the State Government by way of a notification’. There is nothing on
record to show that the State Government issued any notification
in furtherance of Sec. 4(1A) specifying the manner, procedure and
time for identifying, filling and completing the same. Sub-Section
(1A) delegates the power of specifying the method and manner of
selection to the Government.
13. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant argues that the advertisement of the university, declaring that
the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be under the 2001 Rules, is a mistake.
He calls it a mistake because the university shall be governed by the
480 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Universities Act and the Statutes made thereunder and not the 2001
Rules, particularly when these Rules are made under the Karnataka
State Civil Services Act, 1978.8 The university is an autonomous
institution and can never be bound, much less governed, by rules
intended to regulate State Civil Services, is his argument.
14. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
university, has taken the same stand as the appellant. He submitted
that Sec. 78 of the Universities Act gives an overriding effect to the
provisions of this law over other laws. He has drawn our attention to
Sec. 53 of the Universities Act as the guiding principle for appointments
to the post of ‘teachers’ in the university, which includes assistant
professors, readers and professors.
15. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
no. 7, submits that the mandate under Sec. 4(1A) on the Government
to specify the method and manner of selection by the issuance of
a notification stood fulfilled when the university itself advertised by
notifying that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules.
He also submitted that this is the natural consequence of the purpose
and object of introducing sub-Section (1A), which was to enable the
universities to follow the 2001 Rules. He also relied on certain letters
written by the State Government calling upon the university to follow
the mandate of the 2001 Rules.
16. We will examine the question as to whether the advertisement issued
by the university intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under
the Civil Services Act suffers from any illegality. If we come to the
conclusion that compliance with the 2001 Rules is mandatory, we
will affirm the judgments of the Ld. Single Judge and the Division
Bench, and dismiss these appeals. On the other hand, if we find that
the 2001 Rules have no application, or that they are not extended to
appointment by the university, we will allow the appeals and affirm
the appellant’s appointment.
17. The controversy about filling up backlog vacancies of SCs and STs
by the university comes to an end with the insertion of Sec. 4(1A)
of the Reservation Act, 1990. In fact, the provocation for introducing
sub-Section (1A) is that the mandate of the 2001 Rules was not

8 Herinafter referred to as the ‘Civil Services Act’.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 481

Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

followed by the universities. In order to extend the provision of the
2001 Rules to universities, sub-Section (1A) was introduced and this
is clear from the SOR of the amendment introducing sub-section (1A).
18. The identification, procedure and the time for computing, filling and
completing the exercise of filling up backlog vacancies is specifically
delegated under sub-Section (1A) to the Government. The intent
behind the amendment is to vest the power of specifying the method,
procedure and time for identifying, filling and completing the same to
the State. The importance of the Government specifying the same
lies in the fact that these incidents vary from service to service and
establishment to establishment. The Government is best placed to
address the same due to its resources. This is also evident from
Sec. 54 of the Universities Act, which suggests that appointments to
several posts in a university shall be laid down by the Government.
It is an admitted fact that there is no notification issued by the
Government to this effect. However, the university was aware of
the continuous demand of the Government to follow the method of
selection provided in the 2001 Rules. Therefore, in compliance with
the statutory requirement and the Governmental demand, it issued
the advertisement declaring that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as
per the 2001 Rules.
19. There have been letters by the Government demanding compliance
with the 2001 Rules while filling up the backlog vacancies for posts
for SCs/STs and OBCs. We will now refer to these letters. Even
before the advertisement was issued on 21.03.2018, there was a
letter addressed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, State of Karnataka, to the university on 27.02.2018,
instructing the latter to fill up backlog teaching posts as per the
2001 Rules and the guidelines prescribed by the university. We may
mention at this very stage that similar letters were addressed by the
State Government to the university on 22.05.2018 and 09.06.2021,
directing that the procedure contemplated under the 2001 Rules must
be followed for filling up the vacancies of SC/ST and other backward
classes in the university. With these letters, the issue relating to the
legality and validity of the university’s advertisement is beyond doubt.
20. While we reject the submission of Mr. Shailesh Madiyal that the
advertisement declaring that the 2001 Rules will be the ‘Mode of
Selection’, is a mistake, we also hold that the university is bound to
482 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

comply with what is declared in its advertisement: the 2001 Rules
will be the guiding principles for the selection in question. We state
this for the following reasons. Firstly, there was no uncertainty left
after the introduction of sub-Section (1A) to Sec. 4 of the Reservation
Act, 1990, requiring an establishment, i.e., the university, to take
action for filling the backlog vacancies as a one-time measure by
following the method prescribed by the Government. Secondly,
the purpose and object of the amendment was amply clear from
its SOR contemplating the application of the 2001 Rules for the
universities. Thirdly, the conduct of the university in not responding
to the categorical demands of the Government through its letters
dated 27.02.2018, 22.05.2018 and 09.06.2021 to implement the 2001
Rules is conclusive about its acceptance of the applicable law and
the policy, and therefore, the advertisement. Hence, the requirement
of the Government to specify the manner, procedure and time for
identifying, filling backlog vacancies and completing the same was
amply clear to the university. It is with this view that the university
advertised that the ‘Mode of Selection’ shall be as per the 2001 Rules.
21. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition filed by respondent no.
7 was rightly allowed by the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court. While
re-iterating the reasoning of the Single Judge, the Division Bench by
the detailed order, upheld the findings of the Single Judge. Having
considered the matter in detail, we have given our own reasons why
respondent no. 7 should succeed even before this court. The appeals
must, therefore, fail, and we hereby dismiss the same.
22. Having dismissed the appeals, we realise that an unusual situation
has arisen in this case because of the university’s conduct. Though
the appellant was appointed in contravention of Rule 6 of the 2001
Rules, she continued in office during the subsistence of the writ
proceedings. When the Ld. Single judge allowed respondent no.
7’s writ petition and set aside the appellant’s appointment dated
27.12.2019, the appellant approached the Division Bench and
obtained a stay. After the Division Bench affirmed the Ld. Single
Judge’s order and dismissed the writ appeal, she approached this
court and again obtained a stay, and this order is operating till date.
In other words, the appellant’s appointment dated 27.12.2019 is
continuing till date without any interruption. She has been working
for almost four and a half years. On the other hand, the wrongful
denial of appointment to respondent no. 7 was addressed by the Ld.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 483

Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court by setting aside
the appellant’s appointment, and also directing that respondent no.
7 must be given the appointment instead. While we have agreed
that respondent no. 7 must succeed and be restituted to the rightful
position that he had earned, the university must also address the
concern of the appellant. The unfortunate situation has arisen not
because of anything wrong attributable to the appellant, but due to
the indifferent manner with which the university conducted itself. In
order to obviate the injustice caused to the appellant, the university
may consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate her.
We are fully conscious of the limitations in creating such posts over
and above the positions that are borne by a cadre,9 but this is an
extraordinary situation for exercising such discretion.10 We leave
it to the university to take a decision on this issue and pass the
necessary orders.
23. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Appeal Nos. 6772-6773/2023
against the judgment and final order dated 12.03.2021 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 233
of 2021 c/w Writ Appeal No. 190 of 2021 (S-RES) are dismissed,
subject to the observations made in the previous paragraph.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

9 Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1
10 N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157