LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 02-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[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 
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 Karna

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.