STATE OF KARNATAKA versus KUMARI GOWRI NARAYANA AMBIGA ETC.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 27-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
r 
) 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
KUMARI GOWRI NARA Y ANA AMBIGA ETC. 
MARCH 27, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.} 
Kamataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment of Scheduled Castes, 
Scheduled Tribes Backward Tribes to Class III Posts) (Special) Rules, 1977: 
B 
Rules 2(b ), 3 and 4--Class III Posts-Appointment to-Special Rules C 
confining appointment to only Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and back-
ward classes candidates without undergoing selection process-Special rules 
held violative of Article 16(1) and 335-However, appointments made so far 
protected. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 16(1) and 335 : Scheduled D 
Castes-Scheduled Tribes--Backward classes-Special Rules for appointment 
without undergoing selection process held WtConstitutionaJ-For protecting the 
rights of candidates appointed judgment made prospective in operation. 
The appellant-State appoint local candidate • temporary Govern-
ment servants not appointed regularly as per rules of Recruitment to that E 
service • and from time to time· they were regularised under executive 
orders and Rules. Subsequently, the State ordered that no further appoint· 
ments to class III posts be made by appointing local candidates except 
candidates belonging to SC/S'J'. and backward classes. However, not only a 
large number or candidates belonging to SC/ST and backward dasses but F 
>-
(-!so from other categories were appointed. Thereafter the State enacted 
Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment of Scheduled Castes, 
..... . 
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes to Class III Posts) (Special) Rules, 
y-
1977 providing for appointment of local candidates belonging to SC/ST 
and backward classes only. Under the Special Rules, read with the Govern-
ment Instructions dated March 8, 1977 the Administrative Heads of G 
various departments were left with no option but to terminate the services 
of local candidates who did not belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled 
Tribes and Backward Tribes. The local candidates whose services were 
terminated or were likely to be terminated challenged the vires or the 
Special Rules before the High Court contending that a separate procedure 
1135 
H ... _ 
' 
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 S.CR. 
A under the Special Rules for recruitment of candidates belonging to 
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes and that too 
without regard to merit and suitability was discriminatory and not at all 
consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. The High 
Court struck down these Rules as violative of Articles 16(1) and 335 of the 
B Constitution holding that the procedure provided under the Special Rules 
is not consistent with the maintenance of standards of efficiency in the 
State Services. Against the Judgment of the High Court State preferred 
appeals before this Court. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. There is not infirmity in the reasoning and the conclusions 
reached by the High Court. (1142-D] 
2. The direct recruitment to various cadres in Class-III service in the 
Karnataka State is on the basis of merit prepared on the basis of competi-
D tive examination or selection made on the basis of objective criteria 
provided in the various Rules. The Special Rules on the other hand provide 
entry into various cadres of Class III service to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled 
Tribe and Backward Tribe candidates without undergoing the process of 
selection. They are appointed as local. candidates in the first instance and 
E 
~hereafter under the Special Rules they are inducted into various cadres of 
Class III service without going through the process of selection. The proce-
dure provided under the Special Rules is not consistent with the main-
tenance of standards of efficiency in the State Service. [1140-G-H, 1141-A] 
3. Even otherwise the Special Rules cannot be protected under 
F Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and they infract Article 16(1) ~ 
the Constitution of India. It is no doubt correct that reservation of posts 
!n Civil Service is permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of 
India for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes. But 
the Special Rules in this case neither provide for any reservation nor any 
G other affirmative action permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitu-
tion of India. (1142-E] 
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp. 3 S.C.C. 210, referred 
to. 
H 
4. To protect the rights 

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