N.F. SALI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 08-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

N.F. SALi 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Kamataka Civil Services (Special Recrutiment of Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes Candidates of Certain Group 'A' and Group 'B' Posts) 
Rules, 1985/Kamataka State Civil Services (Direct Recrui11nent by Selection) 
Rules, 1973 : 
A 
B 
c 
Rules 3,4,7/Rule 6(2)-Recruil1nent of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled 
Tribes candidates- Whether Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules can be read into sub-
Rule 5(b) of Rule 4 by virtue of Rule 7-Whether Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules D 
applicable to selections made under the 1985 Rules. 
The Kamataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment or Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Candidates to Certain Group 'A! and Group 
'B' Posts) Rules, 1985, provided that notwithstanding the several rules . E 
governing recruitment to· the cadres mentioned in the Schedule to the 
Rules, a special procedure should be followed for filling up the number or 
vacancies shown in Column 3 or the Schedule, by selecting and appointing 
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Two different 
procedures were prescribed for ·the purpose, (i) posts mentioned under 
Serial Nos. 1 to 3, were to be filled np by SC/ST candidates listed in order F 
or merit on the basis or marks obtained by them in the relevant examina-
tion, and (Ii) for the posts mentioned under SI. Nos. 4 to 8, an oral test or 
the candidates eligible for these posts was to.be conducted to assess their 
suitability for post concerned and the candidates were to be listed in order 
of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the oral test. 
In the cases before this Court, the respondent State Government 
constituted a Board for the purpose, as contemplated under Rule 4(1), 
after obtaining particulars of eligible candidates from the various Univer-
sities in the State. The Board conducted oral test on three days and on the 
basis of the oral test certain candidates were selected. 
885 
G 
H 
A 
B 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
The unsuccessful candidates thereupon approached the State Ad-
ministrative Tribunal questioning the validity of the selections made by 
the Board on the grounds that (i) by virtue of Rule 7 of the Rules, sub-rule 
(2) of Rule 6 of the Kamataka State Civil Services (Direct recruitment by 
Selection} Rules, 1973 were applicable to the said selection process, that 
according to Rule 6(2) of the 1973 Rules, the Selecting Authority should 
publish on the notice board of its office on the day on which interview or 
viva-voce was held or on the day following, but before .the commencement 
of the interview or viva-voce on that day, a list of marks obtained by each. 
candidate in the said interview or viva-voce and that in the selection in 
question, the said requirement was not observed, which vitiated the entire 
C process of selection, (ii) that the Interview was not conducted properly, and 
(Iii) that the allocation of posts for different subjects had been made 
Improperly vitiating the entire selection as such. 
On behalf of the State it was contended that Rule 6(2) of the 1973 
D Rules did not apply to selections made under the said Rules and, therefore, 
It was not obligatory upon the Board to publish the list of marks obtained 
by each of the candidates at the said oral test, that even if the said Rule 
6(2) was held applicable, it was not mandatory and its non-observance did 
not vitiate tlie selection, and that unless the selected candidates were 
impleaded as respondents, their selection could not be set asid.,, 
E 
F 
G 
The Tribunal held that Rule 6(2) of 1973 Rules did apply to selec-
tions made under the Rules, and further that the non-observance of the 
said sub-rule had vitiated the entire process of selection, and accordingly 
directed the respondents to interview the candidates afresh and make the 
selection. 
Hence the candidates, whose selection and appointment was set 
aside by the Tribunal, filed special Leave Petitions before this Court. 
Allowing the appeals, by Special Leave, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. Rule 6(2) of the Kamataka Civil Services (Direct 
Recruit1nent by Seclectlon) Rules, 1973, being inconsistent with Rule 
4(5)(b) of the Kamataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Candidates of Certain Group 'A' and Group 
'B' Posts) Rules, 1985, is not applicable to the selections made under these 
H 
Rules. [897-B] 
N.F. SALi v. STATE O

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